81–683 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113–135 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2014 

JULY 2, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2609] 

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, 2014, and for other purposes. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Introduction ................................................................................................ 00 5 

I. Department of Defense—Civil: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil .................................................................. 2 15 

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

Construction ................................................................................. 3 30 

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

Operation and Maintenance ....................................................... 4 41 

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

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 6 66 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .................................... 6 67 

Expenses ....................................................................................... 6 67 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 7 68 

Administrative Provision ............................................................. 7 68 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 8 69 

II. Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project ........................................................................... 14 70 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ................................ 14 70 

Bureau of Reclamation: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Overview ............................................ 00 71 

Water and Related Resources ..................................................... 14 72 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................... 16 79 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ............................................... 16 79 

Policy and Administration .......................................................... 17 80 

General Provisions ....................................................................... 18 81 

III. Department of Energy: 

Introduction ......................................................................................... 00 81 

Committee Recommendations ............................................................ 00 81 

Energy Programs: 

Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency ............. 21 87 

Nuclear Energy ............................................................................ 22 95 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ................................. 23 98 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .................................. 24 101 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve ....................................................... 24 102 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ........................................ 24 102 

Energy Information Administration ........................................... 25 103 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 25 103 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund .......................................................................................... 25 104 

Science .......................................................................................... 26 105 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................... 26 111 

Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ...... 26 112 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program 27 113 

Departmental Administration ..................................................... 28 114 

Office of Inspector General ......................................................... 29 115 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ....................................................................... 29 118 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .............................................. 29 129 

Naval Reactors ............................................................................. 30 135 

Office of the Administrator ......................................................... 30 136 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................... 31 137 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................ 31 137 

Other Defense Activities ............................................................. 31 142 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 32 144 

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 33 145 

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 34 145 

Western Area Power Administration ......................................... 35 146 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund .......... 37 148 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 38 148 

Committee Recommendation .............................................................. 00 149 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 39 179 

IV. Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 48 179 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 49 180 

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... 49 180 

Denali Commission ............................................................................. 49 181 

Northern Border Regional Commission ............................................ 50 181 

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission ........................................ 50 182 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 51 182 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 53 185 

Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects ............................................................................................. 53 185 

Tennessee Valley Authority ............................................................... 00 186 

V. General Provisions 

House of Representatives Report Requirements ..................................... 00 188 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

2014. The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 

2013, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 

for fiscal year 2014. The appropriations for fiscal year 2013 are defined as the amounts provided within Public Law 113–6 and excluding emergency funding, disaster relief adjustments, the 251A 

sequester, and any other adjustments imposed by the Office of 

Management and Budget pursuant to section 3004 of Public Law 

113–6. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 01 81287A.001
5 

INTRODUCTION 

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2014 totals $30,426,000,000, $2,857,000,000 less than the 

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2013 (defined as the amount 

provided within Public Law 113–6 and excluding emergency funding, disaster relief adjustments, the 251A sequester, and any other 

adjustments imposed by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to section 3004 of Public Law 113–6) and $4,057,519,000 

below the President’s budget request. Total security funding is 

$11,104,000,000, $397,000,000 less than the amount appropriated 

in fiscal year 2013 and $548,469,000 below the budget request. 

Total non-security funding is $19,322,000,000, $2,460,000,000 less 

than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2013 and 

$3,509,050,000 below the budget request. 

Title I of the bill provides $4,876,000,000 for the Civil Works programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $104,000,000 below 

fiscal year 2013 (excluding funding provided in Public Law 113–2, 

the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013) and $50,000,000 

above the budget request. Total funding for activities eligible for reimbursement from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is 

$1,000,000,000, $110,000,000 above the budget request. 

Title II provides $964,757,000 for the Department of the Interior 

and the Bureau of Reclamation, $103,962,000 below fiscal year 

2013 and $84,827,000 below the budget request. The Committee 

recommends $956,032,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, 

$91,687,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $90,052,000 below the 

budget request for accounts traditionally within the Bureau of Reclamation. The Committee recommends $8,725,000 for the Central 

Utah Project, $12,275,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $5,225,000 

above the budget request. 

Title III provides $24,925,252,000 for the Department of Energy, 

$2,118,175,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $4,028,641,000 below the 

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

NNSA Administrator, is $11,266,000,000, $235,644,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $386,469,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommends $4,653,000,000 for the Office of 

Science, $982,637,000 for renewable energy, energy reliability and 

efficiency programs; $656,389,000 for nuclear energy programs; 

$450,000,000 for fossil energy research and development; and 

$50,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy. 

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

$5,489,000,000, $242,651,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$132,688,000 below the budget request. 

Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided at 

the requested levels. Title IV provides $249,279,000 for several Independent Agencies, $5,217,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $5,949,000 above the budget 

request. Net funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 

$123,216,000, $4,298,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as 

the budget request. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

Title V includes a rescission of $519,000,000 of prior year appropriations, $513,000,000 more than fiscal year 2013 and 

$419,000,000 more than the budget request. The rescission includes 

$200,000,000 from title I and $319,000,000 from title III. Within 

title III, $157,000,000 is rescinded from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $142,000,000 is rescinded from Weapons Activities, and $20,000,000 is rescinded from Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. 

OVERVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation makes clear the tradeoffs forced 

by relying on cuts in discretionary spending to achieve deficit reductions. In fiscal year 2013, sequestration cut the activities funded 

in this bill by more than $2,100,000,000 with the greatest percentage taken from the most critical area this bill funds: our national 

security. Yet, beyond this percentage difference between security 

and non-security activities, sequestration was indifferent to the 

programs, projects, and activities being cut. Compounding the problem, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013 

was not enacted into law, so the funding levels were based on priorities at least one year out of date. 

The Committee recommendation clearly articulates priorities for 

fiscal year 2014, differentiating among programs, projects, and activities that are inherently federal responsibilities and those that 

might be supported by the private sector or other non-federal entities. Above all else, it supports the most critical of inherently federal responsibilities: the national defense and the maintenance of 

our nation’s waterways. Strong support is provided for basic science 

programs, which are critical to our country’s long-term prosperity, 

and which the private sector is unlikely to assume. Activities to 

clean up contamination from the Manhattan Project are also inherently federal responsibilities and are required to fulfill agreements 

with states, tribes, and other non-federal entities. In contrast, applied energy research and development has the greatest opportunity for support from the private sector and the states. 

The Committee does recognize that the federal government can, 

and should, play a role in helping our private sector compete. Many 

foreign companies enjoy heavy subsidies and other protections from 

their governments. This assistance can give those companies at 

least a short-term advantage in the global marketplace. The recommendation continues applied research and development for energy technologies by focusing the limited available resources on 

programs that help keep the cost of energy low and those that help 

the American private sector quickly identify and pursue promising 

technologies. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS

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

within the limited resources available for fiscal year 2014, the recommendation provides strong support for the President’s proposals 

to increase investments in the NNSA’s infrastructure through the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

following national defense accounts: Weapons Activities, Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors. 

The Committee recognizes and supports the close working relationship that the NNSA and the Department of Defense are demonstrating. Properly executed, this unity of mission will help the 

Department of Defense to better understand the costs of its requirements and the NNSA to build upon Department of Defense 

budgeting experience to provide more accurate estimates of costs. 

The Committee is concerned that assumed within the NNSA’s 

budget are more than $300,000,000 in ‘‘efficiencies’’ that must be 

realized to allow the NNSA to attain its objectives for fiscal year 

2014, and that these ‘‘efficiencies’’ must be maintained in the future. The Committee believes that all options must be considered 

to find these ‘‘efficiencies’’ and includes bill language to reduce the 

percentage of overhead at the weapons laboratories that may be 

used for discretionary research and development. Implementation 

of this reduction should free more than $100,000,000 to be applied 

to the direct support of our nation’s nuclear weapons. The NNSA 

shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act regarding its ‘‘efficiencies’’ for fiscal years 2014 

and 2015. 

The recommendation continues the Committee’s strong support 

for modernization of the nuclear stockpile and its supporting infrastructure. At the same time, the Committee notes that the full extent of the consequences of the NNSA’s project management problems, especially at the largest of the NNSA’s construction projects, 

is still coming to light. As the Administration gains a more complete understanding of cost increases and construction delays, it 

must take the lead to determine whether a new long-term budget 

plan is needed to meet the nation’s strategic objectives. 

The Committee notes that the Administration has proposed a 

new structure for our nuclear stockpile, the so-called ‘‘3+2 strategy’’, to be implemented in the coming decades. This proposal may 

be an attempt to accommodate the budgetary environment facing 

our nation’s strategic defense. While in concept some of the claimed 

benefits, including lower overall costs for maintaining the stockpile, 

are appealing, the Administration has yet to fully analyze and estimate the costs of the workforce implications, infrastructure needs, 

and strategic risks of the proposed changes. This analysis and full 

estimation of risks, benefits, and costs is critical for this Committee 

to determine its support for the proposal. The recommendation 

takes a balanced approach by funding work needed to complete this 

analysis as well as ongoing work that will be needed for our stockpile regardless of its outcome. 

The recommendation largely supports the Administration’s budget request to prohibit the spread of fissile materials overseas, although the Committee would have preferred to allocate more to the 

core nonproliferation programs had funding been available. While 

the United States government has made great strides working with 

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

much more is left to be done. The Committee notes that the United 

States and Russia have not yet determined the next steps of its bilateral nonproliferation relationship and understands that the outcome of this discussion will have important implications for the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

nonproliferation program in the coming years. The Committee requests regular updates from the NNSA regarding the status of 

these discussions. 

Finally, the Committee strongly supports the strategic protection 

afforded by our country’s nuclear fleet, which is supported through 

the Naval Reactors account. The recommendation prioritizes strategic activities, such as the Ohio-class ballistic submarine replacement reactor program, while delaying infrastructure needs that, 

while also important, can be slightly deferred with no strategic repercussions. The Committee greatly appreciates the service of the 

members of our country’s armed forces and will continue to place 

the highest priority on support for them and their work. 

SUPPORTING AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS

The agencies and programs funded by the recommendation are 

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

of Engineers is responsible for keeping our federal waterways open 

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

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

Bureau of Reclamation supplies reliable water to approximately ten 

percent of this country’s population and to much of its fertile agricultural lands. The Department of Energy has been at the forefront 

of developing intellectual property in energy sciences and other disciplines, the commercialization of new ideas, and improvements in 

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

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

Army Corps of Engineers maintains 926 ports and 25,000 miles of 

commercial channels serving 41 states. The maintenance of these 

commercial waterways is directly tied to the ability of this country 

to ship its manufactured and bulk products, as well as to compete 

with the ports of neighboring countries for the business of ships arriving from around the world. These waterways handled foreign 

commerce valued at more than $1,724,000,000,000 in 2012 alone. 

As a primary supporter of America’s waterway infrastructure, the 

Corps is ensuring that the nation has the tools to maintain a competitive edge in the global market. While the Committee must 

make hard choices with limited resources, this recommendation 

makes key changes to the budget request to ensure that the Corps 

has the necessary tools to continue to support America’s shipping 

infrastructure. 

The flood protection infrastructure that the Corps builds or 

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

other public infrastructure investments. In fact, Corps projects prevented damages of $149,600,000,000 in 2012 alone. Between 1928 

and 2012, each inflation-adjusted dollar invested in these projects 

prevented $7.89 in damages. The properties and investments protected by the Corps infrastructure would often be flooded without 

that infrastructure, destroying homes, businesses, and many valuable acres of cropland. 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s water infrastructure is a critical 

component of the agricultural productivity of this country. These 

facilities deliver water to one of every five western farmers resulting in approximately 10 million acres of irrigated land that produces 60 percent of the nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

fruits and nuts. Additionally, these facilities deliver water to more 

than 31 million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. 

Without these dams and water supply facilities, American agricultural producers in the West would not be able to access reliable, 

safe water for their families and their businesses and many municipal and industrial users would face critical water shortages. 

The Department of Energy supports essential research that has 

helped keep America at the cutting edge of science and technology 

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

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

possibilities only in the distant future. 

Research and development for technologies that are closer to 

commercialization, and thus that the private sector has more incentive to take up, receives less funding than in previous years. However, the recommendation does continue a long-standing commitment by the Committee to the type of research that will improve 

American energy security and independence. The recommendation 

for Fossil Energy; Nuclear Energy; and Renewable Energy, Energy 

Reliability and Efficiency are balanced to improve the efficiency 

and cleanliness of existing forms of energy production, while providing support for longer-term development of new and innovative 

forms of energy for this nation’s security and prosperity. 

As noted in previous years, the Department has not been successful at ensuring that intellectual property developed with U.S. 

taxpayer funds benefits those same taxpayers. The Department 

still has no coherent strategy to track and improve domestic exploitation of Department-developed intellectual property. Without such 

a strategy, U.S. manufacturing will too frequently be forced to play 

‘‘catch-up’’ with foreign competitors benefitting from ideas formed 

here in the U.S. The Committee strongly urges the Secretary to 

take more of a leadership role in improving U.S. manufacturing 

and domestic intellectual property retention and includes direction 

to this effect in the ‘‘Department of Energy’’ section. 

PROJECT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

While the Department of Energy has made significant progress 

in the last few years, until the Committee can have confidence in 

the cost and schedule baselines upon which it must form its budgetary decisions, project and program management will continue to 

be a core concern. The Department continues its two decade presence on the Government Accountability Office’s ‘‘high-risk list’’ for 

project management, although it is a hopeful sign that the Department’s management of its smaller projects has been removed from 

the list. Unfortunately, management of the largest projects remains 

on the ‘‘high-risk list’’ and funding for these projects—including the 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Waste Treatment Plant, 

and Uranium Processing Facility—to a large extent drives the Department’s budget request. Even though the Committee has strongly supported nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and cleanup activities, as costs for these construction projects grow and budgets remain constrained, available non-construction program resources 

will likely fall. The Department must get these projects onto a clear 

and enforceable path. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

The Committee remains concerned about the management of the 

Department’s research and development activities, although it 

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

the Committee expects that the nascent reforms within the energy 

efficiency and renewable energy activities will help foster a culture 

in which projects are terminated when those expectations are not 

met. 

The Committee recognizes the improvements made by most of 

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

promised to awards or agreements started in prior years. Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (funded under Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency in this recommendation), 

once one of the greatest offenders, is now on par with Nuclear Energy and Fossil Energy. Minimal mortgages allow these offices to 

ensure that new resources in any fiscal year are allocated to the 

highest value projects, rather than to previous years’ priorities. 

Program managers can actively manage their portfolios, ensuring 

that well-performing awardees are fully resourced without having 

to accommodate uncertainties about future-years’ budgets. 

Unfortunately, the Office of Science has failed to follow this 

trend. Most of its new multi-year awards continue to be mortgaged 

against out-year funding. Most of these new awards are small and 

should be fully funded. In fiscal year 2013, more than 70 percent 

of Science’s multi-year awards were valued at less than $1,500,000. 

In a nearly $5,000,000,000 account, the practice of carrying mortgages for smaller awards is avoidable and should be terminated. 

The recommendation includes language to do so. 

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

of Engineers has suffered several significant failings in recent 

years regarding its projects. The massive increase in the cost of the 

Olmsted Locks and Dam project, which this recommendation contains authorization language to accommodate, is the most obvious 

example. Coupled with the failure of the involved parties to solve 

the revenue challenge limiting projects cost-shared with the Inland 

Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), this cost increase means that the 

Trust Fund’s limited resources will be dedicated to making 

progress at the Olmsted project for many years in the future, rather than addressing the many other priorities awaiting funding. 

Smaller projects have faced problems as well. In some cases, the 

Administration has not requested authorization increases in time 

for the Congress to accommodate them. This lack of planning and 

management is unacceptable. The Corps is directed to develop and 

maintain a database of all current projects, spending-to-date 

against each authorization limit, and a trigger date at which the 

Administration must notify the Congress that an authorization increase is needed to maintain progress on the project. Further direction regarding this topic is included in the ‘‘Corps of Engineers— 

Civil’’ section. 

The Committee also has been made aware of concerns regarding 

the limited manner in which the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation use technology in their contracting processes. Not later than 

180 days after enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

the United States shall conduct a review of implementation by the 

Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation of the requirement regarding the use of electronic submission in federal 

procurement in section 850 of Public Law 105–85. The review shall 

include analysis of: 1) The ability of the data collected through electronic submissions to be used for broader reporting and data usage 

by each agency; 2) potential benefits and obstacles to implementing 

fuller use of electronic submissions, including cost savings, increased security, reduction in errors, paperwork reduction, broader 

bidder participation, competition, and the enhanced use of data collection for management and timely reporting to Congress; and 3) 

available options and technologies for broader implementation and 

the suitability of each option, by contract type and size, for implementation. When analyzing options for possible improvements, the 

Comptroller General should consider the processes or systems used 

for construction-related contracting by other federal and state 

agencies, including departments of transportation. 

Finally, the Committee notes that the Corps only recently submitted its spending plan for fiscal year 2013, months after it was 

required. The Administration’s inability to submit a spending plan 

for this critical agency is unacceptable. This delay will be more disruptive to project implementation than the sequestration cuts, especially since the post-sequester funding levels of most of the 

project-based accounts will still be higher than the fiscal year 2013 

budget request. 

On the other hand, the Committee notes and appreciates the 

work of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Energy 

to keep the Committee up-to-date with their plans for fiscal year 

2013. Sequestration has posed significant challenges for all parties, 

and the Bureau and Department have tried hard to proactively 

manage their resources with congressional input. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT INITIATIVES

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

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

Appropriations’ Surveys and Investigations staff, and its annual 

appropriations Act, including the accompanying report, to promote 

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

The Committee requires detailed reporting from its agencies 

when specific information is needed to inform appropriations Acts 

and to fulfill oversight responsibilities. The Committee is deeply 

concerned that agencies are failing to produce these reports in a 

timely manner. These reports provide critical information that the 

Committee must have to effectively oversee taxpayer funds. Without them, the Committee must make substantive decisions without 

the full input of the executive branch. 

The inability of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy to provide accurate and 

timely financial information to the Committee calls into question 

the strategic planning functions of those agencies and within the 

Administration’s interagency process. The Committee will continue 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

to direct oversight and financial reports in an effort to build a more 

open and transparent budgeting process. The Committee expects 

that the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and 

the Department of Energy will renew their commitment to addressing and completing these congressionally directed reports in a timely manner. 

The Committee has determined the following reports are no 

longer necessary to fulfill its oversight functions and is hereby 

eliminating or otherwise modifying the original reporting requirement: 

Department of Energy.—Annual Report on Enforcement Actions 

for Stripper Well and Exxon Funds, required by H.R. 100–498, the 

Conference Report accompanying Public Law 100–202 (Eliminate). 

Department of Energy.—Report on Marine and Hydrokinetic 

Technologies, required by H.R. 111–278, the Conference Report accompanying Public Law 111–85 (Eliminate). 

Army Corps of Engineers.—Quarterly Report on Project Execution, required by House Report 110–185 (Combine with monthly reporting on emergency funding, except include non-emergency funding each quarter only). 

The recommendation continues the Committee’s responsibility to 

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

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

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

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

below: 

Agency/Account Requirement 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Report on credit for work by non-Federal sponsors 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Guidance on risk estimation in cost estimating activites 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Report on cost related measures of aquatic ecosystem restoration 

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

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Final spending plan for fiscal year 2014 

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

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Plan for management of 902 limit project modifications 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. List of projects that may exceed 902 limits 

Army Corps of Engineers/Investigations ........... Guidance on flood risk in small cities 

Army Corps of Engineers/Construction ............. Guidance and report on alternatives to dam safety activites at Isabella 

Dam and Reservoir project 

Army Corps of Engineers/Construction ............. Report on actions to mitigate threat of predatory birds on endangered 

Salmon species in the Columbia River 

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

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

Army Corps of Engineers/Flood Control and 

Coastal Emergencies.

Guidance on tracking emergency related activities 

Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses .................. Report on plan for allowing firearms on Corps lands 

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

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

Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.GAO Report on electronic submission in contracting 

Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.Report on performance metrics 

Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Resources.Report on water needs in Kettleman City, California 

Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Resources.Report on compliance with direction on buried metallic water pipe 

Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Resources.Guidance on assembly and analysis of data on pipeline reliability 

Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Resources.Report on costs and benefits to address quagga and zebra mussels 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

Agency/Account Requirement 

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

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

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

Department of Energy ....................................... Guidance on proposal of budget structure changes 

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

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

Department of Energy ....................................... Report on historical funding of DOE Centers 

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

Department of Energy ....................................... Report on intellectual property protections 

Department of Energy ....................................... Report on educational funding activities 

Department of Energy ....................................... Reprogramming requirements 

Department of Energy/Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency (REERE).Report on programs supporting thermal energy generation 

Department of Energy/REERE ........................... Guidance on cost competetive transmission components 

Department of Energy/REERE ........................... Requirement for grid cyber security testing capabilities list 

Department of Energy/REERE ........................... Report on strategic workforce plan for OER program 

Department of Energy/REERE ........................... Guidance on biomass activities that use non-food sources. 

Department of Energy/REERE ........................... Report on feasibility of dual-fuel in Class 8 trucks 

Department of Energy/REERE ........................... Guidance on Building America program 

Department of Energy/REERE ........................... Study to improve manufacturing of consumer electronics 

Department of Energy/REERE ........................... Guidance on engagement for housing energy standards 

Department of Energy/REERE ........................... Guidance on support for geothermal technologies 

Department of Energy/Nuclear .......................... Report on nuclear science and engineering workforce 

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

Department of Energy/Fossil ............................. Report on feasibility of recovering rare earth elements 

Department of Energy/Fossil ............................. Direction on interagency research plan regarding methane hydrates 

Department of Energy/Non-Defense Cleanup ... Plan for cleanup of SEFOR at University of Arkansas 

Department of Energy/Science .......................... Plan on Minority Serving Institutions Partnerships 

Department of Energy/Science .......................... Report on free-electron laser array light source project 

Department of Energy/Science .......................... Guidance for ten-year plan for Fusion Energy Sciences. 

Department of Energy/Science .......................... Guidance on budget materials and project baseline for ITER 

Department of Energy/Science .......................... Report on Office of Science Graduate Fellowship program 

Department of Energy/ARPA-E .......................... Report on need for program direction 

Department of Energy/Title 17 ......................... Prohibition on subordinating U.S. interests in loan guarantees 

Department of Energy/Title 17 ......................... Report on status of loan guarantee applications 

Department of Energy/ATVM ............................. Plan on use of remaining AVTM funds 

Department of Energy/DA ................................. Report on costs and benefits of idle reduction in DOE vehicle fleet 

Department of Energy/NNSA ............................. Comprehensive review of security management 

Department of Energy/NNSA ............................. Limitation on NNSA laboratory directed research and development 

Department of Energy/NNSA ............................. Guidance on reform of contractor pension and other benefits 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Guidance on new stockpile concept development 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Investigation and report on certification of new LEP concepts 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Guidance on supporting stockpile production operations 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Guidance on requests for budget structure changes 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Guidance on budgeting for new stockpile development 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Guidance on budgeting for National Ignition Facility operations 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Establishment of new reporting controls for stockpile work and infrastructure 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Requirement for project plans for infrastructure and construction 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Prohibition on starting construction of Uranium Processing Facility 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Guidance on Minority Serving Institutions Partnerships 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.Guidance on lead program office for nuclear forensics 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.Report on outcome of four-year goal to secure nuclear materials 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.Review of DNN performance measures 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.Prohibition of continued study of MOX alternatives 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.Report on NNSA construction Other Project Costs 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.Establishment of new reporting controls for GTRI 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.Program review of Domestic Radiological Protection and Removal 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

Agency/Account Requirement 

Department of Energy/Naval Reactors ............. Guidance on alternatives for spent fuel handling infrastructure 

Department of Energy/Naval Reactors ............. Report on ten year site plan 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental 

Cleanup.

Independent study of risks of outstanding environmental cleanup 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental 

Cleanup.

Establishment of reporting controls for Waste Treatment Plant 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental 

Cleanup.

Guidance on semi-annual reports for Waste Treatment Plant 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental 

Cleanup.

Prohibition on restarting construction of Pretreament Plant 

Department of Energy/Other Defense Activities Report on HSS annual oversight activities 

Department of Energy/Other Defense Activities Guidance on development of graded security posture 

Department of Energy/Bonneville Power ........... Report on any direction from the Secretary of Energy 

Department of Energy/Southeastern Power 

Admin.

Report on any direction from the Secretary of Energy 

Department of Energy/Southwestern Power 

Admin.

Report on any direction from the Secretary of Energy 

Department of Energy/Western Area Power 

Admin.

Report on any direction from the Secretary of Energy 

Department of Energy ....................................... Prohibit funds for activities not approved by Congress 

Department of Energy ....................................... Prohibit funds for high hazard nuclear facilities construction unless cost 

estimates have been developed 

Department of Energy ....................................... Prohibit implementation of section 407, division A, ARRA 2009 

Department of Energy ....................................... Prohibit certain multi year funding agreements in Office of Science 

Department of Energy ....................................... Report on plan for tritium and enriched uranium 

Department of Energy ....................................... Requirement for analysis of alternatives and certification for warhead refurbishment programs 

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Prohibition on terminiating programs without Congressional approval 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Requirement for notification of use of emergency functions 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Guidance on funding for Yucca Mountain license application 

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Report on input and regulatory analysis of 10 CFR Part 50 or 52 

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

Tennessee Valley Authority ............................... Guidance on audit and inspection reports 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act funds 

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

This program is responsible for activities in support of coastal and 

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

water supply, and disaster preparedness and response. The Corps 

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

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

the Civil Works program. 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Civil Works program 

of the Corps of Engineers is a program level of $4,826,000,000, a 

decrease of $154,000,000 from fiscal year 2013. As in previous 

years, the largest dollar reduction is in the Construction account 

($331,000,000), although the Investigations account sees the largest 

percentage reduction (28 percent) from fiscal year 2013. The Mississippi River and Tributaries and Operation and Maintenance accounts are proposed to increase by 11 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The budget request also includes a rescission of 

$100,000,000 of prior-year appropriations. 

The Committee acknowledges that, for the second year in a row, 

the Administration’s request shows an increased focus on navigation improvements over the previous budget request. For the second year in a row, however, this focus seems to come at the expense of investments in flood and storm damage reduction efforts. 

Investments in both of these mission areas not only provide shortterm economic benefits by directly creating jobs, but also provide 

the foundation necessary for long-term economic growth. Further, 

in the case of flood and storm damage reduction, investment can 

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

than accepting the approach proposed in the budget request, the 

Committee has allocated funds to enhance the focus on navigation 

improvements while mitigating the cuts to flood and storm damage 

reduction efforts in the budget request. 

Budget Criteria.—According to the Administration, the Corps 

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

funding was ostensibly allocated based on continuing the ‘‘highest 

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

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

of a nationally- or regionally-significant aquatic ecosystem. OperVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

ation and Maintenance funds were allocated based on a mix of factors, including tonnage movements, risk and consequences assessment, and visitation at recreation sites. It is entirely unclear, 

though, how any of these factors were ranked or weighted during 

development of the budget. 

Most concerning is the fact that these metrics were not applied 

consistently to all previously-funded projects. In other words, numerous ongoing studies and projects, previously funded by congressional direction, were not even eligible to compete for inclusion in 

the President’s budget, with the only explanation the vague characterization of not being consistent with Administration policy. While 

this exclusion is not new this year, or even with this Administration, it nevertheless casts doubt on the true objectivity of the budget development process. 

The Committee notes that the budget again includes a Construction account criterion that makes any coastal navigation project eligible for funding if the project would support jobs or economic activity. The budget request claims this is consistent with guidance 

provided in the fiscal year 2012 Act. On the contrary, the clear intent of the fiscal year 2012 Act guidance was for the Corps to consider, as one of many factors, the amount of job growth or economic 

activity to be supported by a project when determining allocation 

of the additional funds provided. The intent was not to make every 

project that supports any amount of jobs or economic activity eligible for funding regardless of other criteria. 

Project Completions and Initiations.—The budget request for the 

Investigations account includes funding to complete a total of 21 

studies. Funding is requested for 10 new studies. The budget request for the Construction account includes funding to complete six 

projects and to initiate four new projects. Funding for one new program in the Operation and Maintenance account also is requested. 

DEEP-DRAFT NAVIGATION

More than 95 percent of the nation’s overseas trade by weight 

and more than 75 percent by value moves through the nation’s 

ports. Significant changes are occurring in the world’s shipping 

fleets, and the scheduled opening of an expanded Panama Canal in 

2015 has prompted a move towards larger ships requiring deeper 

drafts. The United States must address these evolving infrastructure needs if the nation is to remain competitive in international 

markets and to continue advancing economic development and job 

creation domestically. 

Investigations and construction of port projects, including the 

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

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

authorities. The operation and maintenance of these projects are 

federal responsibilities and are funded as reimbursements from the 

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

tax on the value of imported and domestic cargo. Expenditures 

from the trust fund are subject to annual appropriations. The balance in the HMTF by the beginning of fiscal year 2015 is estimated 

to be nearly $9,000,000,000. 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

request. For fiscal year 2014, the Committee provides a total of 

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

$110,000,000 above the budget request. While not equal to total anticipated annual receipts, this increase is substantial and should 

allow the Corps to make progress on the backlog of dredging needs. 

INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM

The inland waterways system consists of approximately 12,000 

miles of commercially navigable channels and 239 lock chambers to 

support the movement of goods to and from 38 states. The inland 

waterways system carries more than 600,000,000 tons of cargo, valued at nearly $70,000,000,000, each year. This freight includes a 

significant portion of the nation’s grain exports, domestic petroleum 

and petroleum products, and coal used in electricity generation. 

Much of the physical infrastructure of the system is aging, however, and in need of improvements. For example, commercial navigation locks typically have a design life of 50 years, yet nearly 60 

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

old. 

Capital improvements to the inland waterways system are funded 50 percent from the General Treasury and 50 percent from the 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), which is supported by a 

$0.20 per gallon tax on barge fuel. Operation and maintenance 

costs are funded 100 percent from the General Treasury. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget request noted the depletion of accumulated balances in the IWTF. Since that time, at least three proposals have been developed to address this situation, but none has 

gained support from a majority of interested parties within the Administration, the Congress, and industry. 

The Committee continues to support the only prudent budgetary 

option under these circumstances—that of limiting investment to 

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

risk, however. As each fiscal year passes with no legislative 

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

of aging infrastructure increases. The Committee is concerned that 

the chance of significant failure(s) is quickly becoming a question 

of when, not if. The Committee continues to encourage the Administration to work with industry and the appropriate committees of 

the Congress to develop an equitable solution to this problem as 

soon as possible. 

Most of the construction funds available for work on the inland 

waterways system remain concentrated to the Olmsted Locks and 

Dam project in the budget request and the Committee recommendation. The Committee provides additional funding, however, that the Corps may use for high priority operation and maintenance work to avoid catastrophic failure on the inland waterways 

system while a long-term solution to the construction problem is 

developed. 

HURRICANE SANDY

On October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall in the 

Northeastern United States. While still off the coast, the storm became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, as measured by diVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

ameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles. Although damages occurred in areas as far south as Florida, as far north as New England, and as far west as the Great Lakes, the most severe damages 

occurred along the coasts of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113– 

2) provided the Corps of Engineers with funding in the amount of 

$5,350,000,000 to respond to the storm, repair damages to Corps 

projects, and to make improvements that will reduce future flood 

risks. 

The Committee is pleased to note that the Corps has begun work 

on repairing damages to existing projects, including restoring certain projects to design level. The Committee is concerned, however, 

with the Administration’s tardiness in submitting two required interim reports and with the lack of detail expressed in those reports. 

The Act made clear that the Corps was to pursue near-term steps 

to reduce flood risks and development of a long-term comprehensive plan simultaneously. The Corps currently has a number of authorized projects that will provide significant protection against future storms once construction is completed. Many of these projects 

involve ‘‘soft infrastructure’’ such as sand placement, and, therefore, will not unduly constrain long-term options. The Committee 

expects the Corps to proceed with work on both near-term and 

long-term goals expeditiously. 

CREDIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BY NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS

The Committee has heard concerns from a number of communities regarding the existing policy on credits for work performed 

by non-federal sponsors, particularly as it relates to flood control 

projects. Specifically, these communities are concerned that ER 

1165–2–208, issued in February 2012, restricts credit for construction to work performed only after release of the draft feasibility report. While this milestone is an improvement from an earlier 

version of the policy, it still could act as a disincentive for non-federal interests to construct urgently needed flood control projects. 

The Committee believes that the release of a draft feasibility report may be a reasonable milestone for many situations, but that 

there may be situations in which a more flexible policy on crediting 

is appropriate. Such situations may include when the proposed construction is an improvement or modification to an existing federally 

authorized levee system or when the proposed construction will significantly follow an existing levee alignment, especially in reaches 

where the existing levee alignment protects existing infrastructure. 

The Secretary is directed to review existing policy to determine 

if changes could be made to base credit decisions on a set of project 

conditions rather than a one-size-fits-all point in time. The Secretary shall report the results of this review to the Committee not 

later than 60 days after enactment of this Act. If a decision is made 

to update ER 1165–2–208, the Secretary shall provide the Committee with a copy of the updated guidance once it is finalized. If 

a decision is made not to update ER 1165–2–208, the Secretary 

shall detail the reasoning for such decision. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

LEVEE VEGETATION POLICY

For several years now, the Committee has heard from non-federal sponsors concerned that the Corps’ policy on vegetation on levees is overly proscriptive and inflexible and does not adequately 

take into account on-the-ground conditions. Some sponsors have 

highlighted requirements from the Corps that potentially conflict 

with requirements under the Endangered Species Act and under 

tribal treaty obligations. Some in the agricultural community have 

highlighted differing standards on the width of buffer zones between row crops and the base of a levee. 

The Committee notes the Corps’ efforts to further understanding 

of the complex issues of vegetation on levees and levee safety more 

generally. These efforts include publication of a literature review in 

2010, release of a four-volume research document in 2011, issuance 

of the System-wide Improvement Framework (SWIF) policy in 

2011, and continued work to develop a policy guidance letter (Variance from Vegetation Standards for Levees and Floodwalls). The 

Committee encourages the Corps to maximize collaboration with 

non-federal interests, including project sponsors and the agricultural community, and to give serious consideration to their concerns and proposals regarding flexibility, regional considerations, 

financial impacts, and decision criteria. 

PLANNING MODERNIZATION

In February 2013, the Assistant Secretary testified that the 

Corps is taking steps to modernize its planning process through an 

initiative called SMART Planning (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Risk-Informed and Timely) and expects full implementation 

in fiscal year 2014. The goal of this initiative (commonly referred 

to as ‘‘3x3x3’’) is to complete most feasibility studies within 3 years, 

for $3,000,000 or less, and with the decision document coordinated 

by three levels of the organization (headquarters, division, and district offices). The Committee strongly supports efforts to reduce the 

length of time and the funding required to complete studies while 

maintaining quality analysis and an appropriate level of information for congressional authorization and funding decisions. 

As a precursor to this initiative, the Corps sorted all initiated 

studies into active status—those that would be continued under the 

new 3x3x3 goal—and inactive status—those that would be discontinued for reasons as varied as finding no alternative in the federal 

interest to lack of a non-federal sponsor. The Committee is aware 

that there are numerous active status studies with capability for 

fiscal year 2014 that were not included in the budget request, even 

while ten new start studies were proposed. Some of these studies— 

such as the Western Lake Erie Basin, Blanchard River, Ohio, 

study—likely will not be funded under the fiscal year 2013 operating plan, possibly due to being ineligible by not receiving funding 

in fiscal year 2012. It will be very difficult to meet the goal of completing studies within three years if no funding is requested for one 

or more of those years. The Committee encourages the Corps to 

keep its 3x3x3 goal in mind when determining the mix of active 

status and new start studies to propose for funding in future budget requests. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

COST ESTIMATING

In 2007, the Corps implemented a risk-based approach to use in 

its development of cost estimates. This approach quantifies the 

risks for a given project by assigning a dollar value to the uncertainties. This cost is added to the base estimate to establish the 

total project cost estimate. The Committee commends the Corps for 

taking steps to strengthen its cost estimating process. The Committee has heard concerns, however, that the Corps may be exaggerating the uncertainties on lower risk projects, thereby artificially inflating the cost estimates of these types of projects. If true, 

this practice defeats the purpose of using a risk-based approach to 

developing cost estimates and improperly alters the authorization 

and budget development processes. The Committee directs the 

Corps to ensure this type of manipulation of cost estimates does 

not occur. 

PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS

In March 2013, the Council on Environmental Quality released 

final Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in 

Water Resources, as well as draft Interagency Guidelines for public 

review and comment. Unlike previous budget requests, the fiscal 

year 2014 budget request for the Corps of Engineers does not include funding to support implementation of these new documents; 

the Committee provides no funding for this activity. The Corps 

shall continue to use the document dated March 10, 1983, and entitled ‘‘Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for 

Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies’’ during the fiscal year period covered by the Energy and Water Development Act for 2014. 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

PROJECTS

Current policy requires the Corps, during the planning process 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration (AER) projects, to select the alternative deemed most cost-effective. There is no minimum requirement for cost-effectiveness, or any other cost-related measure, for 

AER projects, however. While the difficulties of monetizing the benefits of AER projects cannot be ignored, this policy stands in stark 

contrast to the policy for flood and storm damage reduction and 

navigation projects. To be recommended in a Chief’s Report, the alternative selected in a project in these categories must maximize 

national economic development and must meet a minimum benefitto-cost ratio. 

Similarly, in the budget development process, AER projects are 

evaluated based on the perceived relative importance of the ecosystem to be restored, while minimum cost-related measures heavily influence the evaluation of projects of other authorized purposes. 

The Committee directs the Corps to report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not 

later than 120 days after enactment of this Act on potential costrelated measures or metrics suitable for use in evaluating AER 

projects for authorization and for funding. The Corps shall not 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

limit consideration of measures or metrics based on current policy, 

but rather include in the report any changes to policy or statute 

that would be necessary to implement use of these measures or 

metrics. 

FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

Historically, the Committee has encouraged the Administration 

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

Energy and Water Development jurisdiction, particularly the 

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

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

once projects have been initiated, the Administration will request 

responsible annual funding levels for them through completion. 

The executive branch has traditionally been unwilling to project 

five-year horizons for projects it has not previously supported 

through the budget process. While this unwillingness to have a dialogue regarding additional investment might be reasonable under 

circumstances where there is no likelihood of additional investment, the Congress consistently has supported additional investment in the nation’s water resource infrastructure. The uncertainty 

caused by year-to-year federal planning leaves too many non-federal sponsors unable to make informed decisions regarding local 

funding. 

Comprehensive planning is important for understanding future 

requirements of projects that have been supported through the 

budget process, as well. For example, the fiscal year 2014 budget 

request proposes four new Construction starts. Three of these 

projects currently are expected to require more than $2,400,000,000 

in federal funding to complete, yet the budget request includes only 

$5,000,000 to initiate them. An understanding of how the Administration expects to make progress on any new projects—especially 

within budget requests that consistently reduce Construction funding—is an essential piece of information for the Congress to have 

when evaluating whether to include funding for new projects. 

It would be beneficial for the Congress, the Administration, and 

project partners to have a comprehensive plan to outline requirements for all projects that have received an appropriation to date 

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

In the absence of such a dialogue, the Committee directs the 

Corps to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the optimum 

timeline and funding requirements to complete each of the ongoing 

projects which received construction funding in any of fiscal years 

2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, but are not slated by the Administration for construction funding in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. This report also should include an accounting of the federal 

and non-federal investments to date for each project. This report 

shall be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 90 days 

after enactment of this Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

NEW STARTS

The Administration proposes a combined reduction of 

$359,000,000 from Investigations and Construction from fiscal year 

2013 and a reduction of $751,000,000 (excluding emergency funding) from fiscal year 2010, the last time the Committee provided 

funding for any new starts. While the Committee strongly supports 

additional investment in water resource projects, the funding limitations set forth by the Administration present the Committee with 

a difficult choice between starting new authorized projects in the 

Corps and only funding those projects that are ongoing in an effort 

to complete them. The lack of a five-year comprehensive plan forces 

the Committee to make this choice based on very limited information regarding the completion schedule of ongoing projects and how 

any new starts would affect that schedule. Faced with this difficult 

choice and limited information, the Committee has determined that 

prioritizing ongoing projects is the only responsible course of action 

and, therefore, recommends no new starts in any account in fiscal 

year 2014. 

FORMAT OF FUNDING PRIORITIES

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

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

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

definition encompasses project-level funding not requested by the 

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

more transparent way to highlight programmatic priorities without 

abandoning congressional oversight responsibilities. The fiscal year 

2012 Act included a modification to the format used in previous 

years, and that format is continued for fiscal year 2014. 

The Committee notes that one argument frequently made 

against congressional earmarks is that these activities are political 

decisions that divert funding to parochial concerns and away from 

national priorities. This argument assumes that funding decisions 

made within the executive branch are inherently objective and devoid of political influence. The fiscal year 2014 budget request for 

the Corps of Engineers disproves this argument and underlying assumption. The budget request includes projects previously funded 

only through congressional earmarks that the executive branch had 

determined were inconsistent with policy in the past. No identification or explanation of policy changes accompany the budget request 

for these projects. So either congressional earmarks have been for 

projects of national significance, or the executive branch is just as 

susceptible to political pressure. The Committee believes both conclusions to be true. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

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

studies, projects, and activities within each account requested by 

the President along with the Committee-recommended funding 

level. To advance its programmatic priorities, the Committee has 

included additional funding for certain categories of projects. Also 

included are criteria by which the Corps is to evaluate and select 

specific projects to fund within those allocations. The Corps is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

of Representatives and the Senate, not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, on its final spending plan for fiscal year 2014. 

The Committee expects considerable improvement in the quality 

and detail of information provided in fiscal year 2014 regarding the 

allocation of these additional funds. The original spending plan 

submitted for fiscal year 2012 contained no justification information whatsoever—a completely unacceptable response to congressional direction. Forty-four days after the original deadline, the 

Committee received a bare minimum of justification information. 

Unfortunately, much of this information was more a description of 

the scope of work than a justification of how or why individual 

funding decisions were made. 

To assist the Corps in providing the requested information, the 

Committee directs the Corps to develop ratings systems for use in 

evaluating projects for allocation of the additional funding provided 

in this Act. These evaluation systems may be, but are not required 

to be, individualized for each account or for each category of 

projects to be funded. Each study or project eligible to receive additional funds shall be evaluated under the applicable ratings system. The Corps retains complete control over the methodology of 

these ratings systems, but may not exclude studies or projects from 

evaluation under these ratings systems for being ‘‘inconsistent with 

Administration policy.’’ 

The executive branch retains complete discretion over projectspecific allocation decisions within the additional funds provided. 

The spending plan submitted to the Committee, however, shall include a detailed description of the evaluation systems developed 

and any discrepancies between those studies and projects with the 

highest ratings and those studies and projects that received funding. Discrepancies include highly-rated activities that did not receive funding as well as activities that received funding that were 

not rated as highly as projects that were not funded. For any study 

or project excluded from funding for being ‘‘inconsistent with Administration policy,’’ the spending plan shall explain in detail why 

the activity is inconsistent with Administration policy. 

PROJECT COST AUTHORIZATION LIMITS

Water resource projects of the Corps of Engineers typically have 

been authorized for construction with a maximum project cost specified in statute. Section 902 of the Water Resources Development 

Act (WRDA) of 1986 provides the Corps with the flexibility to increase this authorized cost limit for certain circumstances (often 

called the 902 limit). To proceed with a project that exceeds its 902 

limit, the statutory authorization must be amended. The House 

rule defining a congressional earmark generally includes any such 

project modification unless requested by the President. This situaVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

tion makes it incumbent upon the executive branch to be more 

mindful of monitoring project 902 limits and the timeliness of any 

necessary legislative proposals. The Corps can no longer simply assume that the Congress will fix these problems without an official 

request. The most appropriate vehicle for these project modifications would be an authorization bill, such as a WRDA bill. 

The budget request includes legislative language to increase the 

authorized costs of three projects. To ensure these projects can proceed without additional delay, the Committee includes these provisions in the bill. 

The Committee also is aware of other projects that have reached 

or will soon reach their 902 limits, or that will be unable to begin 

construction due to a 902 limit issue, yet the Corps has not submitted legislative proposals with the appropriate justification for 

these projects. In one case, a navigation project was identified in 

the Administration’s July 2012 We Can’t Wait initiative as one of 

seven nationally and regionally significant infrastructure projects 

that will help drive job growth and strengthen the economy. Yet 

without legislation to address the 902 limit, progress on this project 

will quickly grind to a halt. To address this and other similar situations, the bill includes language providing the Corps with the flexibility to move forward with projects while the Congress and the 

Administration devise a process for addressing 902 limit issues 

under a ban on congressional earmarks. 

The Committee directs the Corps to develop, and submit to the 

appropriate committees of the Congress, a plan for the oversight 

and management of 902 limit project modifications. This plan 

should cover, at a minimum, identification of potential 902 limit 

issues, development of the appropriate analyses and reports detailing updated project costs, and all levels of review within the Administration necessary to submit the legislative proposal to the 

Congress. The Committee further directs the Corps to submit to 

the appropriate congressional committees a list of all projects, including those projects for which the Administration might not 

budget, with the potential to exceed the 902 limits within the next 

two fiscal years assuming funding at capability in each fiscal year. 

The list should be submitted semi-annually, including concurrently 

with the annual budget request. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING

To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2014 is 

consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the movement 

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

a legislative provision outlining the circumstances under which the 

Corps of Engineers may reprogram funds. 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 APPROPRIATIONS LEVELS

Unless otherwise noted, all references to fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the Corps of Engineers in the report text shall be exclusive of the amounts provided in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113–2). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total program level of 

$4,876,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers, $104,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $50,000,000 above the budget request. After accounting for the rescission of $200,000,000 of prior-year appropriations in title V of this bill and the rescission of $100,000,000 in the 

budget request, the recommendation of $4,676,000,000 is 

$304,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $50,000,000 below the 

budget request. The rescission is to be derived from prior-year balances under the Investigations, Construction, Mississippi River and 

Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance accounts at the discretion of the Corps. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2013 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2014 budget request, and the Committee-recommended levels is provided below: 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Account FY 2013 

enacted* FY 2014 request Cmte. rec. 

Investigations .............................................................................................. $125,000 $90,000 $90,000 

Construction ................................................................................................ 1,674,000 1,350,000 1,343,000 

Mississippi River and tributaries ............................................................... 252,000 279,000 249,000 

Operation and maintenance ....................................................................... 2,410,000 2,588,000 2,682,000 

Regulatory program .................................................................................... 193,000 200,000 193,000 

FUSRAP ........................................................................................................ 109,000 104,000 104,000 

Flood control and coastal emergencies ...................................................... 27,000 28,000 28,000 

Expenses ..................................................................................................... 185,000 182,000 182,000 

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

TOTAL, Program Level ............................................................... 4,980,000 4,826,000 4,876,000 

Rescission ................................................................................................... – – – ¥100,000 ¥200,000 ** 

NET APPROPRIATION, Corps of Engineers—Civil ..................... 4,980,000 4,726,000 4,676,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

** Included in Title V of the Act. 

INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $125,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 90,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 90,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥35,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need for, the 

engineering and economic feasibility of, and the environmental and 

social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource 

problems; preconstruction engineering and design; data collection; 

interagency coordination; and research. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,000,000, 

$35,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance, are shown on the following table: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 03 here 81287A.002
27 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 04 here 81287A.003
28 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 05 here 81287A.004
29 

Updated capability.—Following the submission of the budget request, the Committee received from the Corps updated information 

regarding the amount of work that could be accomplished in fiscal 

year 2014; the Committee adjusted project-specific allocations 

downward accordingly. If the Committee receives further capability 

updates, the Committee will consider further allocation updates, as 

appropriate. In the Investigations account, the South San Francisco 

Shoreline, California, allocation was adjusted. 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The Committee notes 

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

the Construction account, as in previous years. 

Research and Development.—The Committee supports the Corps’ 

efforts to significantly improve the safety, efficiency, reliability and 

cost of performing inspections of critical and aging infrastructure 

and is aware that innovative and technically advanced methods of 

inspection that would assist in performing this vital mission are 

being developed collaboratively by the Corps and the private sector, 

such as non-destructive testing (NDT) and non-destructive evaluation (NDE) techniques for the inspection of trunnion rods on dams. 

In order to accelerate the delivery and deployment of innovative 

technologies for infrastructure inspection, the Committee urges the 

Corps to continue to prioritize funding for the validation of proven, 

high-payoff, innovative practices and technologies at the national 

level. 

Water Resources Priorities Study.—No funding is included for 

this new item. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The fiscal year 2014 

budget request does not reflect the extent of need for project studies funding. The Corps has numerous studies initiated that will be 

suspended or slowed under the limits of the budget request. These 

studies could lead to projects with significant economic benefits, 

particularly by increasing national competitiveness through marine 

transportation improvements and by avoiding damages caused by 

flooding and coastal storms. The Committee includes additional 

funding for ongoing navigation and flood and storm damage reduction studies. While this additional funding is shown in the feasibility column, the Corps should use these funds in recon, feasibility, and PED, as applicable. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that either was not included in the Administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. A study shall be eligible for 

this funding if: (1) it has received funding, other than through a 

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

or (2) it was previously funded and could reach a significant milestone or produce significant outputs in fiscal year 2014. In no case 

shall funds be used to initiate new studies within this account or 

for any item where funding was specifically denied. Further, none 

of these funds may be used to alter any existing cost-share requirements. 

As discussed earlier in this report, the Corps shall develop a ratings system and evaluate ongoing studies under this system prior 

to allocating these additional funds. The Corps shall consider developing a ratings system that gives priority to completing or accelerating ongoing studies that will enhance the nation’s economic development, job growth, and international competitiveness, or are 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

for projects located in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the 

Corps shall provide to the Committee a work plan: (1) detailing the 

ratings system developed and used to evaluate studies; (2) delineating how these funds are to be distributed; (3) including a summary of the work to be accomplished with each allocation; and (4) 

a list and description of each discrepancy between the results of the 

study evaluations and the allocations made. No funds shall be obligated for any project under this program which has not been justified in such a report. 

Budgeting for small population areas.—The Committee recognizes that a small city, less than 50,000 in population, is at a disadvantage in comparison with its large urban counterparts under 

the Army Corps of Engineers utilization of high benefit-cost ratios 

in its budgeting process. The Committee directs the Army Corps of 

Engineers to consider the impact of flood risk on a small city’s economic viability in determining budget priorities. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $1,674,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 1,350,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,343,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥331,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥7,000,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

This appropriation funds construction, major rehabilitation, and 

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

reduction, or aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. 

Portions of this account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,343,000,000, 

$331,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $7,000,000 below the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 06 here 81287A.005
32 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 07 here 81287A.006
33 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 08 here 81287A.007
34 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 09 here 81287A.008
35 

Updated capability.—Following the submission of the budget request, the Committee received from the Corps updated information 

regarding the amount of work that could be accomplished in fiscal 

year 2014; the Committee adjusted project-specific allocations 

downward accordingly. If the Committee receives further capability 

updates, the Committee will consider further allocation updates, as 

appropriate. In the Construction account, the following allocations 

were adjusted: Fort Pierce Beach, Florida; Pinellas County, Florida; 

Lower Savannah River Basin, Georgia; and Savannah Harbor Disposal Areas, Georgia and South Carolina. 

Isabella Dams and Reservoir, California.—The Committee is 

aware that the Corps’ planned Isabella Lake Dam Safety Modification Project will require damage to or demolition of multiple U.S. 

Forest Service administrative, workshop, and recreation buildings 

and facilities around the reservoir. Failure to rebuild or relocate 

these facilities could cause severe economic hardship to the communities in the region. A 1964 memorandum of agreement between 

the Secretaries of the Army and Agriculture indicates the Corps 

will replace any Forest Service facilities adversely affected by 

Corps projects. The 2008 Ancillary Operating Agreement No. 4 for 

Lake Isabella, California, between the Corps Sacramento District 

Engineer and Sequoia National Forest Supervisor, indicates the 

Corps shall replace recreation and administrative facilities that are 

impacted by Lake Isabella project activities. However, the Corps 

has recently indicated it does not have sufficient authority to replace Forest Service facilities impacted by the Lake Isabella 

project. Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages the Corps to 

explore all available solutions, including, but not limited to, administrative or legal remedies, to rebuild or relocate U.S. Forest Service facilities impacted by the Isabella Lake Dam Safety Modification Project. 

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

request includes funding for the Savannah Harbor Expansion, 

Georgia project in the Investigations account. As in previous fiscal 

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

Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon and 

Idaho.—Research conducted by Oregon State University (USGS) 

concluded that Caspian Terns nesting at Goose Island in Potholes 

Reservoir, as well as other predatory birds in the region, including 

cormorants and gulls, consume as many as 15 percent of migrating 

endangered upper Columbia River Steelhead smolts. The Committee directs the Corps to provide a written report to the House 

of Representatives Appropriations Committee not later than 60 

days after enactment of this Act on what actions have been taken, 

what progress has been made to date, and what further actions are 

planned, to address this significant threat to endangered salmon 

species. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Corps has ongoing, 

authorized construction projects that would cost tens of billions of 

dollars to complete, yet the Administration continues to request a 

mere fraction of the funding necessary to complete those projects. 

The Committee includes additional funds to continue ongoing 

projects and activities to enhance the nation’s economic growth and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

international competitiveness. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that either was not included in the Administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. A project shall be eligible for 

this funding if: (1) it has received funding, other than through a 

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

or (2) it was previously funded and could reach a significant milestone or produce significant outputs in fiscal year 2014. None of 

these funds may be used to initiate new projects, for any item 

where funding was specifically denied, for projects in the Continuing Authorities Program, or to alter any existing cost-share requirements. 

As discussed earlier in this report, the Corps shall develop a ratings system and evaluate ongoing projects under this system prior 

to allocating these additional funds. The Corps shall consider developing a ratings system that takes into consideration the following: 

benefits of the funded work to the national economy; extent to 

which the work will enhance national, regional, or local economic 

development; number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; ability to obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal year, including consideration of the ability of the non-federal sponsor to 

provide any required cost-share; ability to complete the project, 

separable element, or project phase with the funds allocated; for 

flood and storm damage reduction projects, including authorized 

nonstructural measures, the population, economic activity, or public infrastructure at risk, as appropriate; for flood and storm damage reduction projects, including authorized nonstructural measures, the severity of risk of flooding or the frequency with which 

an area has experienced flooding; and for navigation projects, the 

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

Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the Corps 

shall provide to the Committee a work plan: (1) detailing the ratings system developed and used to evaluate projects; (2) delineating 

how these funds are to be distributed; (3) including a summary of 

the work to be accomplished with each allocation; and (4) a list and 

description of each discrepancy between the results of the project 

evaluations and the allocations made. No funds shall be obligated 

for any project under this program which has not been justified in 

such a report. 

Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).—The Committee continues to support all sections of the Continuing Authorities Program. Funding is provided for eight CAP sections at a total of 

$33,250,000, an increase of $4,250,000 above the budget request 

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

projects without the lengthy study and authorization process typical of most larger Corps projects. The management of the Continuing Authorities Program should continue consistent with direction provided in fiscal year 2012. This direction is restated here for 

convenience. 

For each CAP section, available funds shall be allocated utilizing 

this sequence of steps until the funds are exhausted: 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

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

and for which Corps headquarters authorizes execution of the 

agreements; 

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

previously funded for the applicable phase but not ready for 

execution of new cost-sharing agreements; and 

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

Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate 

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

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

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

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

Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for each 

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

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

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

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

The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending and 

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

to execute its project responsibilities. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects in all 

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

assessment is made that such projects can be funded over time 

based on historical averages of the appropriation for that section 

and after prior approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 

Estuary Restoration Program.—No funding is provided for this 

item as the authorization of appropriations expired at the end of 

fiscal year 2012. 

Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Projects.—Some coastal storm 

damage reduction projects provide for periodic nourishment. These 

projects are authorized for construction over a 50-year period. Some 

of the earliest projects initiated are coming up on the end of the 

authorized time period, and the non-federal sponsors have indiVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:39 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

cated interest in extending the authorizations. To date, the Corps 

has not clarified its policy for evaluating these requests. The Committee directs the Corps to consider existing authorities, the unique 

elements of these projects, and similarities to projects with other 

authorized purposes. The Corps shall report to the appropriate congressional committees, not later than 90 days after enactment of 

this Act, on any legislative changes necessary to provide a clear 

policy on this issue. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $252,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 279,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 249,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥30,000,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

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 $249,000,000, 

$3,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $30,000,000 below the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 011 here 81287A.009
40 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 012 here 81287A.010
41 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The value of prior investments in the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project cannot 

be disputed, yet considerable work remains to complete this vital 

project in the heart of our nation. Therefore, the recommendation 

provides additional funds to continue ongoing studies, projects or 

maintenance. The Committee directs that these funds be used for 

flood control, navigation, water supply, ground water protection, 

waterfowl management, bank stabilization and environmental restoration work. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that 

either was not included in the Administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. While this additional funding is shown under 

remaining items, the Corps should utilize these funds in investigations, construction, and operation and maintenance, as applicable. 

A project shall be eligible for this funding if: (1) it has received 

funding, other than through a reprogramming, in at least one of 

the previous three fiscal years; or (2) it was previously funded and 

could reach a significant milestone or produce significant outputs 

in fiscal year 2014. None of these funds may be used to start new 

projects or activities or for any item where funding was specifically 

denied. 

As discussed earlier in this report, the Corps shall develop a ratings system and evaluate ongoing projects under this system prior 

to allocating these additional funds. The Corps shall consider developing a ratings system that gives priority to completing or accelerating ongoing work that will enhance the region’s and nation’s 

economic development, job growth, and international competitiveness, or that is for projects located in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. 

Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the Corps 

shall provide to the Committee a work plan: (1) detailing the ratings system developed and used to evaluate projects; (2) delineating 

how these funds are to be distributed; (3) including a summary of 

the work to be accomplished with each allocation; and (4) a list and 

description of each discrepancy between the results of the project 

evaluations and the allocations made. No funds shall be obligated 

for any project under this program which has not been justified in 

such a report. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $2,410,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 2,588,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 2,682,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +272,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ +94,000,000 

*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

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

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

collection of domestic, waterborne commerce statistics. Portions of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

this account are financed through the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,682,000,000, $272,000,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $94,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 013 here 81287A.011
44 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 014 here 81287A.012
45 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 015 here 81287A.013
46 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 016 here 81287A.014
47 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 017 here 81287A.015
48 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 018 here 81287A.016
49 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 019 here 81287A.017
50 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 020 here 81287A.018
51 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 021 here 81287A.019
52 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 022 here 81287A.020
53 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 023 here 81287A.021
54 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 024 here 81287A.022
55 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 025 here 81287A.023
56 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 026 here 81287A.024
57 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 027 here 81287A.025
58 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 028 here 81287A.026
59 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 029 here 81287A.027
60 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 030 here 81287A.028
61 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 031 here 81287A.029
62 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 032 here 81287A.030
63 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here 81287A.031
64 

Missouri River Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Reallocation Study.—The Committee has heard concerns from existing 

water supply users that this study could result in sharp increases 

in monthly water bills. The Corps is encouraged to explore all reasonable options for mitigating abrupt cost increases. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The fiscal year 2014 

budget request does not fund operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of our nation’s aging infrastructure sufficiently to ensure 

continued competitiveness in a global marketplace. The Committee 

recognizes the ability of properly maintained ports to serve as drivers of economic growth within communities, states, and regions. On 

the other hand, federal navigation channels maintained at only a 

fraction of authorized dimensions and navigation locks and hydropower facilities well beyond their design life result in economic inefficiencies and risk infrastructure failure, which can cause substantial economic losses. The Committee believes that investing in 

operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of infrastructure today 

will save taxpayers money in the future. 

The Committee includes additional funds to continue ongoing 

projects and activities. The intent of these funds is for ongoing 

work that either was not included in the Administration’s request 

or was inadequately budgeted. None of these funds may be used to 

initiate new projects or programs, for any item where funding was 

specifically denied, or to alter any existing cost-share requirements. 

As discussed earlier in this report, the Corps shall develop a ratings system and evaluate ongoing projects under this system prior 

to allocating these additional funds. The Corps shall consider developing a ratings system that takes into consideration the following: 

ability to complete ongoing work maintaining authorized depths 

and widths of harbors and shipping channels, including where contaminated sediments are present; ability to address critical maintenance backlog; presence of the U.S. Coast Guard; extent to which 

the work will enhance national, regional, or local economic development, including domestic manufacturing capacity; extent to which 

the work will promote job growth or international competitiveness; 

for harbor maintenance activities, total tonnage handled, total exports, total imports, dollar value of cargo handled, energy infrastructure and national security needs served, lack of alternative 

means of freight movement, and savings over alternative means of 

freight movement; number of jobs created directly by the funded 

activity; ability to obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal 

year; ability to complete the project, separable element, or project 

phase within the funds allocated; and the risk of imminent failure 

or closure of the facility. 

The Committee is concerned that the Administration’s criteria 

for navigation maintenance do not allow small, remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways to properly compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee urges the Corps to revise 

the criteria used for determining which navigation projects are 

funded in order to develop a reasonable and equitable allocation 

under this account. The criteria should include the economic impact that these projects provide to local and regional economies, in 

particular those with national defense or public health and safety 

importance. Further, the Committee directs the Corps to allocate 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

not less than $30,000,000 of the additional funds provided to small, 

remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways. 

Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the Corps 

shall provide to the Committee a work plan: (1) detailing the ratings system developed and used to evaluate projects; (2) delineating 

how these funds are to be distributed; (3) including a summary of 

the work to be accomplished with each allocation; and (4) a list and 

description of each discrepancy between the results of the project 

evaluations and the allocations made. No funds shall be obligated 

for any project under this program which has not been justified in 

such a report. 

Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability.—No funding is included for 

this new item. 

Zebra and Quagga Mussels.—The Committee understands the 

challenges posed by the invasion of quagga and zebra mussels in 

various places across the country, and that invasion has not yet occurred in the Pacific Northwest and Lake Tahoe. Given the significant Federal assets in the region, it would seem prudent to determine the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure. The Committee recognizes the assessment work that is underway, but believes more 

can and should be done to prevent invasion. Portions of the country 

are already dealing with these invasive species and the lessons 

learned should be applied to developing a strategy of minimizing 

the impacts to vulnerable infrastructure in this region. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers, in partnership with the 

Bonneville Power Administration, to continue its efforts to develop 

invasive mussel vulnerability assessments for federally owned hydropower projects in the Pacific Northwest, including an estimate 

of the annual cost of protection and maintenance of this infrastructure, if applicable. Further, the Committee urges the Corps, where 

appropriate and within existing authority, to assist the States, 

Tribes and local authorities in their efforts to prevent the spread 

of invasive mussels to Federal projects in the region. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $193,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 200,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 193,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥7,000,000 

*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

This appropriation provides funds to administer laws pertaining 

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

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

to review and process permit applications, ensure compliance on 

permitted sites, protect important aquatic resources, and support 

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

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $193,000,000, 

the same as fiscal year 2013 and $7,000,000 below the budget request. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

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

local economic development organizations have applied for permits 

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

denied or otherwise frustrated those efforts. Although the local organizations have established precedent by providing several examples of where similar applications were approved, the Corps now 

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

and other exact specifications of the proposed development in order 

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

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

neither the directive nor the authority for the Corps to assume 

such responsibilities. The Committee encourages the Corps to work 

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

The Committee continues to learn of examples of infrastructure 

projects delayed for years due to repeated reviews being performed 

sequentially. Communities rely on these projects for commerce and 

transit, and delays can adversely affect public safety and economic 

growth. The Committee encourages the Corps to pursue ways to 

shorten review times, including by performing reviews concurrently 

to the maximum extent practicable. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $109,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 104,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 104,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

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

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

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

FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee intended 

to transfer only the responsibility for administration and execution 

of cleanup activities at FUSRAP sites where the Department had 

not completed cleanup. The Committee did not transfer to the 

Corps ownership of and accountability for real property interests, 

which remain with the Department. The Committee expects the 

Department to continue to provide its institutional knowledge and 

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

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

$5,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. The Committee continues to support the prioritization of 

sites, especially those that are nearing completion. Within the 

funds provided in accordance with the budget request, the Corps is 

directed to complete the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

of the former Sylvania nuclear fuel site at Hicksville, New York, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

and, as appropriate, to proceed expeditiously to a Record of Decision and initiation of any necessary remediation in accordance with 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $27,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 28,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 28,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

This appropriation funds planning, training, and other measures 

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

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

and storm damage reduction projects. 

The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for this account, 

$1,000,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee notes that the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 

112–25) provides for the appropriation of funds for disaster relief 

only in areas designated as major disasters pursuant to the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 

U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). The Corps can relatively easily determine the 

location of many emergency activities funded under this account, 

and therefore these activities may be funded using amounts designated for disaster relief. The Corps has not, however, traditionally tracked many other more programmatic activities to specific locations. In order to minimize the potential impact to its base funding, the Corps is directed to develop a method for tracking emergency-related activities to specific locations to the greatest extent 

possible. The Corps shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 

90 days after enactment of this Act on progress in this regard, including a list of any activities the Corps determines cannot be 

tracked to specific locations and an estimate of funding used for 

these activities over the past 10 years. 

EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $185,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 182,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 182,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $182,000,000, 

$3,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee has become aware of plans to restructure several 

District offices—plans that have been announced to District staff 

but that were not communicated to the Committee in any form 

prior to the announcement. While the Committee recognizes that a 

reduction of $717,000,000 in the civil works program over the 

course of several years may necessitate a realignment of staff and 

responsibilities within the Corps, this reduction is no greater than 

that proposed in budget requests over the same period of time. As 

such, it is incumbent on the Corps to communicate these changes, 

along with the justification for such actions, in the budget request 

or, at a minimum, prior to announcing any restructuring plan. The 

Committee has requested detailed information on this restructuring to understand the implications for the state and local communities that depend on the District offices. The Committee expects that no restructuring will occur until the Corps has provided 

a detailed justification for the realignment of responsibilities. 

The Corps is directed to be ready to report to the appropriate 

committees of Congress not later than 90 days after enactment of 

this Act on an implementation plan for aligning Corps policy regarding the possession of firearms at water resources development 

projects covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations, with the comparable policies of the National Park 

Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Public Law 

111–24. This plan shall detail the actions necessary to address any 

statutory, regulatory, budgetary, or other policy issues related to 

such an alignment of policy. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 5,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works oversees the 

Civil Works budget and policy, whereas the Corps’ executive direction and management of the Civil Works program are funded from 

the Expenses account. 

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

same as fiscal year 2013 and the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for the 

purchase or hire of passenger motor vehicles. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

except in certain circumstances. 

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

Act to carry out any contract that commits funds beyond the 

amounts appropriated for that program, project, or activity. 

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

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

mechanism to enhance revenues sufficient to meet the cost-sharing 

requirements is enacted. 

The bill continues a provision requiring the submission of any 

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

The bill continues a provision allowing the Corps to implement 

actions to prevent aquatic nuisance species from dispersing into the 

Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic connection between the 

Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin. The Committee remains concerned by the threat of aquatic nuisance species to the 

nation’s water bodies and recognizes the critical role of the Army 

Corps of Engineers in preventing, controlling, and managing the 

threat of Asian carp. The Committee notes that the Corps cooperates with other federal, state, and local government agencies 

through the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee to execute a comprehensive strategy to deal with Asian carp. 

The bill makes permanent a provision authorizing the transfer of 

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

due to Corps of Engineers projects. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds from being used 

to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction under 

the Clean Water Act. 

The bill contains a provision increasing the authorized cost of the 

Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois and Kentucky, project. 

The bill contains a provision increasing the authorized cost of the 

Miami Harbor, Florida, project. 

The bill contains a provision increasing the authorized cost of the 

Little Calumet River Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana, project. 

The bill contains a provision regarding the limitation concerning 

total project costs in section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds from being used 

to develop or implement changes to certain definitions for the purposes of the Clean Water Act. 

The bill contains a provision allowing the possession of firearms 

at water resources development projects under certain circumstances. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $21,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014** .................................................................... 3,500,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 8,725,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥12,275,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ +5,225,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

** The budget requests the Central Utah Project as part of the Bureau of Reclamation. For purposes of 

comparison, the budget request is shown here. 

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

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

Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act 

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

recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in 

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

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

prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request proposes to repeal the statutory prohibition on delegation of responsibility and put oversight of 

the Central Utah Project under the Bureau of Reclamation. The 

Committee rejects this proposal. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2014 to carry out 

the Central Utah Project is $8,725,000, $12,275,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $5,225,000 above the budget request. Within the 

funds recommended, the following amounts are provided for the 

Central Utah Project construction by activity: 

Utah Lake Drainage Basin Delivery System ....................................... $5,225,000 

Water Conservation Measures .............................................................. – – – 

Fish & Wildlife Conservation Projects .................................................. 1,200,000 

Total, Central Utah Project Construction ..................................... 6,425,000 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount 

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

Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 

and Conservation Commission. These funds, as proposed in the 

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

recreation mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title 

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

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

Title III—Fish and Wildlife, Recreation and Mitigation, and Conservation .............................................................................................. $300,000 

Section 201(a)(1) Mitigation Measures ................................................. 700,000 

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

For program oversight and administration, the Committee recommends $1,300,000, the same as the budget request. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET OVERVIEW

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

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

the American public. Since its establishment by the Reclamation 

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

facilities that have contributed to sustained economic growth and 

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

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

continues to develop authorized facilities to store and convey new 

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

the 17 western states. Reclamation maintains 476 dams and 348 

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

As Reclamation’s large impoundments and appurtenant facilities 

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

and rehabilitating Reclamation infrastructure continues to grow, 

yet Reclamation has not budgeted funding sufficient to implement 

a comprehensive program to reduce its maintenance backlog. At 

the same time, Reclamation is increasingly relied upon to provide 

water supply to federally-recognized Indian tribes through water 

settlements, rural communities through its Title I Rural Water 

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

be challenging and requires active participation and leadership on 

the part of Reclamation and its technical staff. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $1,049,584,000. After accounting for proposed changes in 

account structure, the request for activities funded under the Bureau of Reclamation in recent years is $1,046,084,000. The Committee recommendation totals $956,032,000, $91,687,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $90,052,000 below the budget request. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2013 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2014 budget request, and the Committee recommendation is provided below. 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Account FY 2013 

enacted* 

FY 2014 

request Cmte rec. 

Water and Related Resources ................................................................................ $895,000 $791,135 $812,744 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................................................. 53,068 53,288 53,288 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ............................................................................ 39,651 37,000 30,000 

Policy and Administration ....................................................................................... 60,000 60,000 60,000 

Indian Water Rights Settlements ........................................................................... – – – 78,661 – – – 

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund ...................................................................... – – – 26,000 – – – 

Central Utah Project Completion ............................................................................ – – – 3,500 – – – 

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ........................................................................ 1,047,719 1,049,584 956,032

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $895,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 791,135,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 812,744,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥82,256,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ +21,609,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

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

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

related natural resources. 

For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends $812,744,000, 

$82,256,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $21,609,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation includes in this 

account certain Indian Water Rights Settlements proposed for 

funding under a separate account in the President’s budget request. No funding is included for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, which the President’s request also proposed as a new 

separate account. Adjusted for this change in account structure, the 

recommendation is $83,052,000 below the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 034 here 81287A.032
74 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 035 here 81287A.033
75 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 036 here 81287A.034
76 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 037 here 81287A.035
77 

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.—The budget request again 

proposes an account separate from the Water and Related Resources account for discretionary funding of San Joaquin River Restoration activities. As in past years, the Committee includes this 

line item within the Water and Related Resources account, although no funding is provided. 

Indian Water Rights Settlements.—The budget request again proposes a new appropriations account for five Indian water rights settlements. As in prior fiscal years, however, the Committee includes 

funding for these settlements in the Water and Related Resources 

account. 

WaterSMART Program.—No funding is provided for the new 

Shared Investment Water Innovation Program. Without additional 

authority, it is likely that much of the funding requested for other 

components of the WaterSMART Program would not be usable by 

Reclamation. Review and reauthorization of the program are the 

jurisdiction of the authorizing committee. Therefore, the Committee 

reduces funding for the WaterSMART Program so that it stays 

within the existing authorization ceiling. 

WaterSMART Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse 

Projects.—The Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program is intended to help ensure the reliability 

of water supplies throughout the West. The Committee has been 

informed that there may be an opportunity to enhance the program’s effectiveness through the advancement of regional-scale 

projects. These regional projects can require longer planning and 

construction timeframes than other more locally focused projects. 

Accordingly, the Committee encourages Reclamation to review options for the advancement of regional-scale water reclamation and 

reuse projects, including through the provision of planning and construction assistance grants that can each be used over a period of 

up to five years. 

Kettleman City, California.—The Committee is concerned by the 

immediate and long-term public health threat posed by benzene 

and arsenic contamination of groundwater that the Kettleman City 

Community Services District relies on to supply its 1,500 residents. 

Despite the multi-year efforts of the Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water Resources, Kings County, and Central 

Valley Project and State Water Project contractors to identify a reliable, alternative source of clean drinking water and means for delivery, the problem persists. The Committee urges the Secretary of 

the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and in collaboration with state and local entities, including the California 

Department of Public Health, and California’s State Water Resources Control Board, to continue to work expeditiously with 

Kettleman City Community Services District officials and other relevant stakeholders to address the city’s water needs. The Secretary 

is further directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the Bureau’s activities related to this matter not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe.—The Committee made clear in the 

fiscal year 2012 Act and the fiscal year 2013 House report that concerns persist regarding implementation of Reclamation’s Technical 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
78 

Memorandum 8140–CC–2004–1 (‘‘Corrosion Considerations for 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe’’). The Committee expected Reclamation to take these concerns seriously and to revisit its implementation of the memorandum. Unfortunately, Reclamation has stated 

unequivocally that implementation continues unchanged. Specifically, the Committee is concerned that Reclamation’s level of reliance on this memorandum may be holding different materials to 

different standards of reliability and increasing project costs unnecessarily. The Committee again clarifies that the vague—and in 

practice seemingly lengthy—deviation process mentioned in Reclamation Manual Policy, Performing Designs and Construction Activities, FAC P03 is not sufficient to avoid the perception of use of 

the memorandum as the ‘‘sole basis’’ for decisions. Therefore, not 

later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, Reclamation shall 

be prepared to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate a detailed plan for complying with the fiscal year 2012 Act, as reiterated and further clarified in the fiscal year 2013 House report and this report. Yet another claim that Reclamation has always been in compliance with 

this directive and no changes are necessary will not be a satisfactory response. 

Additionally, the Committee reiterates its concern that such a 

highly visible and controversial issue needs to avoid not just actual 

bias and predetermined outcomes, but also any appearance of it. 

Therefore, Reclamation is directed to ensure that all assembly and 

analysis of data on pipeline reliability required in the fiscal year 

2012 Act is conducted by an appropriate independent third-party. 

Groundwater Recharge.—Recognizing the importance of water 

conservation especially in the West, the Committee requests the 

Bureau of Reclamation share any available studies and planning 

models with communities implementing groundwater recharge 

projects. 

Desalination Technologies.—The Committee continues to express 

support for the development of ocean water desalination technologies and efforts to provide additional water supplies to the nation. The Committee has not included funding for this activity because current authorization under the Water Desalination Act of 

1996 expires at the end of fiscal year 2013. If this authorization is 

extended by the authorizing committee, the Committee will reconsider funding for this program. 

Quagga and Zebra Mussels.—The Bureau of Reclamation in its 

operations on the Colorado River shall report to Congress on the 

costs and benefits of various available methods, including chlorine 

and biopesticides, to address and mitigate the current problems 

posed by quagga and zebra mussels on Reclamation’s infrastructure and mission. The report should include an analysis of the efficacy of each treatment system. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
79 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $53,068,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 53,288,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 53,288,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +220,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

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

habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish 

and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley area of 

California. Resources are derived from donations, revenues from 

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

mitigation and restoration payments collected on an annual basis 

from project beneficiaries. 

For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends $53,288,000, 

$220,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for 

programs and activities according to the Administration’s request. 

The Committee notes that the increase for this account in the 

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

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $39,651,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 37,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 30,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥9,651,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥7,000,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The California Bay-Delta Restoration account funds the federal 

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

and federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in this 

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

For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends $30,000,000, 

$9,651,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $7,000,000 below the budget 

request. The Committee adopts the budget proposal to remove reference to the California Bay-Delta Authority in the legislative text. 

The reference is unnecessary because the Authority has been replaced by the Delta Stewardship Council and no funding has been 

requested or provided for the Council. 

The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau 

of Reclamation, is encouraged to expedite completion of the planning and feasibility studies and environmental impact statements 

associated with the water storage projects identified in section 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
80 

103(d)(1) of the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108–361). 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $60,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 60,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 60,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Policy and Administration account provides for the executive 

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

activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative 

and technical costs. These charges are covered under other appropriations. For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends 

$60,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2013 and the budget request. 

The Committee remains concerned about the limited information 

regarding activities included in the annual budget request that is 

provided to the Committee. Particularly as new, large, and costly 

projects and programs are proposed for initiation, Reclamation 

must provide detailed analysis and explanation of how these commitments will be met in the future and the impacts to ongoing 

projects and programs. Without an understanding of out-year funding needs of activities in the budget request, for example, it is difficult for the Committee to evaluate the budget proposal and the 

prioritization of actions it represents. Reclamation is directed to 

work with the Committee to develop a mutually acceptable scope 

of information to be included in, or concurrent with, the standard 

budget justification materials provided to the Congress. 

The Committee previously has directed the Administration to 

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

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

The Committee once again directs the Administration to fulfill the 

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

plan. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

preparation of the five-year plan. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
81 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for the 

purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

The bill continues a provision regarding the circumstances in 

which the Bureau of Reclamation may reprogram funds. 

The bill continues a provision regarding the San Luis Unit and 

Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

The bill includes a provision regarding pipeline reliability standards. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

INTRODUCTION 

Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of 

Energy programs, including Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability 

and Efficiency; Nuclear Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development; Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves; the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve; the Energy Information Administration; Non-Defense Environmental 

Management; the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund; Science; the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency—Energy; Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program; 

Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loans Program; Departmental Administration; Office of the Inspector General; the National Nuclear Security Administration (Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of 

the Administrator); Defense Environmental Management; Other 

Defense Activities; the Power Marketing Administrations; and the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Energy has requested a total budget of 

$28,953,893,000, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, 

in fiscal year 2014 to fund programs in its five primary mission 

areas: science, energy, environmental cleanup, nuclear nonproliferation, and national security. The Department of Energy 

budget request is $1,910,466,000 above fiscal year 2013 and, once 

again, includes significant increases to renewable energy programs 

and national defense mission areas while proposing significant reductions to Nuclear Energy and Fossil Energy Research and Development. 

The Committee’s recommendation recognizes the difficult budgetary realities faced for fiscal year 2014. It significantly restructures the balance of the bill to ensure inherently federal responsibilities, such as national security, basic science activities, and environmental cleanup, are supported. The limited remaining resources are allocated to programs that can best address the threat 

of high gasoline and electricity prices and to those that help support American economic competitiveness in a global energy marketplace. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
82 

MAJOR COMMITTEE CONCERNS

Unfortunately, this budget request once again fails to reflect a 

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

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

budget requests. The fiscal year 2014 budget request, like its predecessors, instead seems more ideological than practical. For instance, the request makes substantial cuts to Fossil Energy and 

Nuclear Energy, this country’s most important energy sources, in 

order to increase funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 53 percent. As attractive as renewable energy may be, it 

will only supply a mere fraction of this country’s energy over the 

next 50 years, and taxpayer dollars should be invested across the 

spectrum of all technologies. The Committee encourages the new 

leadership of the Department of Energy to develop an energy policy 

which is sound both scientifically and economically. This policy 

should support the budget request for fiscal year 2015. 

On March 20, 2013, the Committee heard testimony from representatives of the Department of Energy, Government Accountability Office, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding a longstanding Committee concern: the Department’s project management challenges and policies. While the Department has made 

some improvements in its ability to responsibly manage large construction projects and the billions of dollars spent each year at our 

national laboratories, it is incumbent on the new Departmental 

leadership to sustain this progress. At the same time, the new 

management structure will continue to uncover problems that had 

been hidden for years under layers of bureaucracy. As those problems are made known, the Department will have to be prepared to 

respond to criticism by showing that it is rapidly responding to the 

problems it finds and that its policies will preclude such problems 

from being repeated. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution states ‘‘No 

money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law’’. 

The Committee continues the Department’s reprogramming authority in statute to ensure that the Department carries out its 

programs consistent with congressional direction. This reprogramming authority is established at the program, project, or activity 

level, whichever is the most specific included in the text or table 

detailing the Committee’s recommendation for the Department of 

Energy’s various accounts. The Committee also prohibits new 

starts through the use of reprogramming and includes other direction to improve public oversight of the Department’s actions. 

In addition, the Committee includes a new general provision applying to the Act that prohibits any elimination or reduction proposed in a budget request until such proposed change is enacted or 

approved pursuant to reprogramming and transfer guidelines included in this Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
83 

FINANCIAL REPORTING

The Department continues to request changes to the congressional budget structure. While the Committee has supported 

changes to the budget structure to improve transparency and provide flexibility in executing funding, these structural changes can 

make it difficult to understand programmatic trends, cause 

misperceptions, and make it difficult to conduct an ‘‘apples to apples’’ comparison. For instance, in the Nuclear Energy account, this 

year’s request proposed to shift funding for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security from Other Defense Activities into the Nuclear 

Energy account, while also shifting funding for certain activities 

within Radiological Facilities Management out of the Nuclear Energy account and into NASA’s budget. Because of these puts and 

takes, the Department presented roughly level funding for Nuclear 

Energy, even though the request actually reduced funding for research and development activities by 17 percent. Similarly, multiple changes to the Weapons Activities and Nuclear Nonproliferation accounts, including the transfer of scope between them, make 

understanding the impacts of the budget request difficult. The 

Committee directs the Department to consult with the Committee 

before implementing any changes to its budget request structure. 

In addition, the Committee directs the Department to continue 

to provide monthly Financial Balances Reports to the Committee. 

The reports should provide, for each program at the congressional 

control level as specified in the table in this report detailing the 

Committee’s recommendation for the Department’s various accounts, the following balances: total available (prior and current 

year); unobligated; unobligated but committed; and obligated, 

uncosted. Data should be provided both in summary form and by 

the fiscal year the funding was appropriated. Emergency funding, 

including any unspent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

balances, should be displayed separately within the report. This direction shall apply to future fiscal years unless contradicted by the 

Committee. 

The Committee remains concerned over the lack of transparency 

in the Department’s use of Program Direction funds and has specified Program Direction funding in the bill for the relevant accounts. 

The Committee directs the Department to provide a Program Direction Report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

of Representatives and the Senate not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. The report should provide for each program 

and field activity for the two previous fiscal years budgeted and expended amounts for salaries and benefits, travel, support services, 

and other related expenses and other relevant categories. This report should include Program Direction balances in summary form 

and by fiscal year. 

MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR SPENT FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE

Again this year, the Obama Administration continues its willful 

disregard for its legal responsibilities regarding Yucca Mountain. 

By unilaterally halting the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository, the Administration has delayed fulfilling its 

legal requirement to take responsibility for civilian spent nuclear 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
84 

fuel, increasing the financial penalties taxpayers must bear. The 

Department’s fiscal year 2012 Financial Report shows the estimated liability our taxpayers now face is $22,300,000,000, an increase of $3,200,000,000 from the previous year, and an increase of 

more than $7,000,000,000 from 2010. This liability will continue to 

grow. In addition, the Department of Energy has no disposition 

pathway for high-level defense waste at sites across the country, 

presenting the likelihood that the federal government will have to 

pay penalties to the states as deadlines for removal are missed. Finally, the credibility of the federal government has been further 

eroded by the blatant political maneuverings of the Administration 

to skirt the law and halt the program. 

The fiscal year 2014 request includes a proposal to implement 

the Department’s Strategy for the Management and Disposal of 

Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste. This strategy—informed by the Administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission 

that by its very charter did not examine the suitability of Yucca 

Mountain as a permanent repository—is estimated at 

$5,600,000,000 over the next ten years. The strategy also proposes 

to reform the current funding arrangement for the Department’s 

nuclear waste fund management program. The Committee notes 

that neither the BRC recommendations nor the Department’s proposal has been considered by Congress, yet the Administration included $60,000,000 in its fiscal year 2014 request for used nuclear 

fuel disposition, including activities necessary solely as a consequence of the Administration’s Yucca Mountain policy. The recommendation rejects these proposals and makes clear that any activities funded from the Nuclear Waste Fund must be in support 

of Yucca Mountain. 

In addition, the recommendation provides $25,000,000 to support 

the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository and 

includes bill language allowing Nuclear Waste Fund appropriations 

to be transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in support 

of Yucca Mountain. The recommendation also expresses support to 

local communities who have formally consented to host Yucca 

Mountain. The Committee includes this support in recognition that 

Nye County, the county that encompasses the Yucca Mountain 

area, has given its formal consent to host Yucca Mountain, yet the 

Administration blithely ignores this consent as it pushes ahead on 

its own ‘‘consent-based approach’’. 

The Committee notes that geological repositories will be needed 

in addition to Yucca Mountain. If the Congress provides the authority for such repositories, as well as for a consensus-based siting 

process, the Committee will consider support for such activities at 

that time. In the meantime, the bill contains a prohibition on using 

funds to close the Yucca Mountain license application or to take actions that would irrevocably remove Yucca Mountain as an option 

for a repository. 

PROLIFERATION OF CENTERS

The Committee has for years expressed concern with the Department’s establishment of a variety of new research centers, or persistent, location-based grantees that receive funding across a number of years and that often require out-year commitments subject 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
85 

to appropriations. Examples included Energy Frontier Research 

Centers, Energy Innovation Hubs, BioEnergy Research Centers, 

Clean Energy Application Centers, and Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities. This year, the President added to this list by announcing new ‘‘Innovative Manufacturing Initiative’’ centers. Unfortunately, the Administration continues to propose these new 

ideas without examining, or at least articulating, why existing programs are inadequate or underperforming. No offsets are offered 

within existing programs, and no policy prescriptions are offered. 

The Committee continues to support the ongoing review of all existing research centers and expects frequent and thorough updates as 

the Department considers their relative effectiveness and potential 

renewal or termination in future years. The Committee urges the 

Department to look at its programs as a portfolio of approaches to 

achieve results and to propose eliminating less effective programs 

and support mechanisms. 

While many of these centers have been proposed openly and established with congressional concurrence, a number have been established or renewed over the years without mention in budget requests, including Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities. Further, 

many centers have been funded perennially and lack a concrete 

goal after which they would be terminated. This practice has led 

to the proliferation of centers across many Departmental programs 

consuming program budgets and preventing prioritization of funds 

towards other higher-priority activities. Addressing this problem 

requires a higher degree of transparency, evaluation, and 

prioritization to ensure that the Department funds only highly-effective centers closely aligned to program missions. 

Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the Department is directed to submit to the Committee a comprehensive list 

of all centers to be funded in fiscal year 2014, including the date 

of establishment, funding level in fiscal year 2014, total funding received to date, purpose and milestones, and expected termination 

date. Further, future budget request justifications should explicitly 

include all centers and their current and proposed funding levels, 

expected out-year commitments, and detail on their programmatic 

and technical goals. 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

The Committee urges the Secretary to take a more aggressive approach to ensure U.S. innovation benefits the United States. Each 

year, the Administration proposes increases for basic science and 

applied research and development, but includes little or no attention to ensuring that the intellectual property developed by people 

supported by these funds is used to further the interests of the 

United States economy. Not later than 120 days after enactment 

of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 

on his initiatives to preserve intellectual property and encourage 

its use in the United States, as well as on what authorities are 

available to control intellectual property, including the Bayh-Dole 

Act, that may help the retention of domestic manufacturing. The 

report should describe how the Department uses these authorities 

to ensure that its scientific discoveries yield commercial techVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 

nologies that are manufactured domestically. In addition, the Secretary should include in the report specific recommendations for 

improving domestic intellectual property transfer and retention. 

The Committee urges the Secretary to identify and enable a specific office in the Department of Energy to take the lead on advancing retention and utilization of intellectual property developed 

through Department of Energy support. 

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and scholarship programs in fiscal year 2014 unless they were explicitly included in the budget justification or funded within this recommendation. Any new or ongoing programs that the Department 

wishes to fund in fiscal year 2015 must be detailed in the fiscal 

year 2015 budget request documents. This direction shall be followed in future fiscal years unless contradicted by the Committee. 

Further, the Department is directed to report to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, 

not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, a comprehensive 

listing of educational activities at the Department funded with fiscal year 2013 appropriations, including all fellowships, scholarships, workforce training programs, and primary and secondary 

school activities. For each activity, the report shall include the fiscal year 2013 funding level, purpose, out-year mortgages, and Department account and program within which the activity resides. 

This report shall be submitted in future fiscal years unless contradicted by the Committee. 

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. As in the fiscal year 

2012 Act, the Department’s reprogramming requirements are detailed in statute. To assist the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided for programs and activities funded in 

the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation. The recommendation includes a general provision providing internal reprogramming authority to the Department, as long as no program, 

project, or activity is increased or decreased by more than 

$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, compared to the levels 

in the text or table detailing the Committee’s recommendations for 

the Department’s various accounts. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project to another project or a change of $2,000,000 or 10 

percent, whichever is less, in the scope of an approved project. 

Criteria for Reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made 

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of 

the project or activity until the next appropriations year would result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or priority. A 

reprogramming may also be considered if the Department can show 

that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding for 

an activity. Mere convenience or preference should not be factors 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
87 

for consideration. A reprogramming may not be employed to initiate new programs. No funds may be added to programs for which 

funding has been denied. 

Reporting and Approval Procedures.—In recognition of the security missions of the Department, the legislative guidelines allow 

the Secretary and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration jointly to waive the reprogramming restriction 

by certifying to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate that it is in the nation’s security 

interest to do so. The Department shall not deviate from the levels 

for activities specified in the report that are below the level of the 

detail table, except through the regular notification procedures of 

the Committee. Any reallocation of new or prior-year budget authority or prior-year de-obligations, or any request to implement a 

reorganization that includes moving previous appropriations between appropriations accounts must be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval 

by the Committees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy 

programs in fiscal year 2014 are described in the following sections. 

A detailed funding table is included at the end of this title. 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

RENEWABLE ENERGY, ENERGY RELIABILITY AND EFFICIENCY

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... – – – 

Recommended, 2014** ....................................................................... $982,637,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +982,637,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ +982,637,000 

*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

**Excludes $157,000,000 in rescissions of prior-year unobligated balances. 

The Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency account 

consolidates the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

within the Department of Energy. This consolidated office includes 

programs that conduct research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment activities that keep our nation’s energy infrastructure 

secure, that address the impact of high gas prices, and that support 

energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as federal energy 

assistance programs. 

The Committee recommends $982,637,000 for Renewable Energy, 

Energy Reliability and Efficiency, $982,637,000 above fiscal year 

2013 and $982,637,000 above the budget request. After accounting 

for the new account structure included in this bill, the recommendation for activities currently funded in two separate accounts is $970,954,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $1,962,078,000 

below the budget request. Title V of this bill rescinds $157,000,000 

of unobligated prior-year balances from within Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy account. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
88 

Priorities.—Within limited resources in fiscal year 2014, the 

Committee focuses funding on programs that address future high 

gas prices and support American manufacturing, two of the Committee’s highest priorities. Funding for these two priorities comprises two-thirds of all research funding in the new account, compared to less than half under current levels. In addition, the recommendation fully supports efforts to strengthen the resilience and 

cyber security of our electricity infrastructure. 

The Vehicle Technologies, Bioenergy Technologies, and Hydrogen 

and Fuel Cell Technologies programs fund activities that can reduce American exposure to future high oil prices. Research into 

cutting-edge technologies that will increase the gas mileage of gasoline and diesel fuel vehicles—the vast majority of today’s fleet—will 

allow Americans to spend less on fuel over the same distance. Research into next-generation automotive and fuel technologies that 

power vehicles with domestic energy sources such as natural gas, 

electricity, biofuels, and hydrogen can likewise dramatically lower 

the impact of future high gas prices on Americans. The activities 

funded within this program, together with the activities funded 

elsewhere in the bill to increase electricity production from domestic coal, gas, and nuclear fuel, form a two-pronged approach to protecting Americans from future increases of petroleum-based fuel 

prices. 

The Advanced Manufacturing Program, formerly Industrial Technologies, will fund activities to help American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace. Energy costs are a major contributor to manufacturing costs, and technology innovations that steeply reduce energy consumption in industrial and manufacturing 

processes can give American manufacturers competitive advantages. Further, the Committee funds activities throughout all research and development programs targeted at lowering the manufacturing cost of emerging energy technologies. 

The Committee is concerned that, historically, technology innovations developed through energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development ultimately lead to manufacturing of new 

or cheaper products overseas. The Committee cautions the Department against this pitfall and charges the new program with targeting the Advanced Manufacturing activities, as well as research 

and development across the Department, to ultimately create manufacturing jobs in the United States. 

Reliable and resilient energy infrastructure is vital to our nation’s economy, human health and safety, and national security, 

and cyber security has emerged as one of the nation’s most serious 

grid modernization and infrastructure security issues. The Cyber 

Security for Energy Delivery Systems program develops advanced 

technologies and cyber security capabilities, and expands situational awareness to enhance the reliability and resilience of the nation’s energy infrastructure by reducing the risk of energy disruptions due to cyber events. 

Thermal Energy.—The Committee recognizes that thermal energy accounts for approximately thirty percent of our national energy consumption and directs the Department to submit to the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and 

the Senate not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
89 

report on the programs supporting thermal energy generation, including across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. 

The report should specifically identify which mechanisms and programs support community-scale projects to increase local energy 

independence, and identify improvements or new ways the Department of Energy can partner with the Department of Agriculture to 

promote thermal energy market development and community scale 

projects. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program advances technologies and provides operational support to increase 

the efficiency, resilience, and security of the nation’s electricity delivery system. The power grid currently employs aging technologies 

at a time when power demands, deployment of new intermittent 

energy resources, and rising security threats are imposing new 

stresses on the system. Activities within the Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability program aim to develop a modern power 

grid by advancing cyber security technologies, intelligent and highefficiency grid components, and energy storage systems. The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, $32,490,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$61,400,000 below the budget request. Administrative costs for this 

program have been incorporated into Program Direction within the 

new account. 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $14,000,000 for Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability, $11,490,000 below fiscal year 2013 

and $18,000,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, 

the Department is directed to support research and development of 

cost-competitive transmission components using high-temperature 

superconducting and ambient-temperature conducting materials 

with increased efficiency, capacity, durability, longevity, and reliability, as well as to examine the feasibility of ultraconductive copper technology. 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Energy Storage Research and Development, $15,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$10,000,000 below the budget request, and $5,000,000 for Smart 

Grid Research and Development, $19,000,000 below fiscal year 

2013 and $9,400,000 below the budget request. Within available 

funding, the Committee encourages the Department to explore grid 

integration research. The request proposes $80,000,000 for such activities within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, but the Department has yet to sufficiently articulate why 

the integration of clean energy technologies into the electricity grid 

is not more suited to the Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program mission. 

The Committee recommends no funds for the proposed Electricity 

Systems Energy Innovation Hub, $20,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for cyber security for 

energy delivery systems research and development, $10,000,000 

above fiscal year 2013 and $2,000,000 above the budget request, of 

which $5,000,000 is for the Department to explore the potential 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
90 

benefits of a test grid capable of conducting full-scale research, 

testing, and evaluation of cyber security effects on the grid, including integration of wireless technologies and systems. The Department is further directed to submit to the Committee a prioritized 

list of current and potential testing capabilities, including a fullscale test grid. 

National Electricity Delivery.—The Committee recommends 

$6,000,000 for National Electricity Delivery, formerly Permitting, 

Siting, and Analysis, $1,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the 

same as the request. 

Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration.—The Committee 

recommends $10,000,000 for this program that secures the nation’s 

energy infrastructure, $4,000,000 above fiscal year 2013 and 

$6,000,000 below the request, to include $4,000,000 for the proposed Operational Energy and Resilience (OER) program. The Department is directed to submit a strategic workforce plan for the 

OER program to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

of Representatives and the Senate not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, should any of this additional funding be used 

for staffing purposes. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH, 

DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT

The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program includes 

research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities 

into bioenergy technologies, hydrogen and fuel cells, advanced manufacturing, geothermal technologies, solar energy, water power, 

and wind energy. Energy efficiency activities include reducing the 

energy consumption of vehicle, building and industrial technologies. Federal energy assistance programs include weatherization assistance, state energy programs, and tribal energy activities. The Committee recommends $731,600,000 for energy efficiency 

and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment activities, $766,392,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$1,587,900,000 below the budget request, to include $390,000,000 

for programs that address the impact of high gas prices and 

$341,600,000 for research into renewable energy and energy efficiency. 

Bioenergy Technologies.—Along with electric, fuel-cell, and natural gas vehicles, biofuels grown from non-food crops or algae are 

one of the few ways by which the nation can lower its dependence 

on imported oil and reduce the impact of future high gas prices on 

American families and businesses. Bioenergy Technologies, formerly Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D, develops and demonstrates technologies to convert biomass crops to fuels, chemicals, 

heat, and power. The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for this 

program, $78,804,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $162,000,000 

below the budget request. 

The Department is directed to continue conducting only research, 

development, and demonstration activities advancing technologies 

that can produce fuels and electricity from biomass and crops that 

could not otherwise be used as food. Within available funding, the 

recommendation encourages the Department to conduct research 

and development of biofuels from algae feedstocks. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
91 

The Committee is concerned the Department is interpreting biomass too narrowly and failing to consider promising noncellulosic 

forms of biomass energy technology projects. For purposes of allocating resources, the Department is encouraged to include biosolids 

derived from the municipal wastewater treatment process and 

other similar renewables within the definition of noncellulosic biomass. 

The budget request proposes funding and legislative language for 

a joint initiative with the Navy and the Department of Agriculture 

to develop commercial diesel and jet biofuels production capacity 

for defense purposes. The Department has not adequately justified 

why the Department of Energy should fund this Defense initiative, 

nor whether the proposed investments can successfully lower costs 

to competitive levels in several years or will only serve to sink costs 

into a product that is too immature to compete without federal support. The recommendation includes no funding for the proposed initiative and does not include the requested legislative language. 

The recommendation provides no funds for cook stoves activities, $4,000,000 below the request. 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.—The Hydrogen and Fuel 

Cell Technologies program advances technologies that use fuel cells 

and hydrogen energy carriers for both transportation and stationary purposes. The Committee recognizes the breakthrough research, cost reductions, and increased efficiencies and durability of 

fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems achieved by this program 

that have accelerated the technologies’ transition to market. Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies remain one of the limited avenues to 

reduce Americans’ exposure to future high gas prices, and the Committee continues to support research in this area. The Committee 

recommends $65,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies, 

$38,378,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $35,000,000 below the 

budget request. 

The Committee encourages the Department to explore Market 

Transformation for cost-shared advanced demonstration and deployment of early market stationary power and motive applications, including material handling equipment, ground support 

equipment, refrigerated trucks, auxiliary power units and the associated hydrogen infrastructure, to the extent possible within available funding. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Vehicle Technologies program invests 

in activities to lower the impact of high gas prices on the nation’s 

drivers through technological advancements that increase the fuel 

efficiency of vehicles and the spectrum of transportation fuels. The 

Committee recommends $205,000,000 for Vehicle Technologies, 

$123,027,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $370,000,000 below the 

budget request. 

The Committee encourages the Department to prioritize funding 

for Advanced Combustion Engine Research and Development to increase gas mileage by improving the combustion engine technologies used in the vast majority of the nation’s current vehicles. 

Within available funding, the Committee directs the Department to 

consult with other federal agencies, such as the Environmental 

Protection Agency, to determine the feasibility for dual-fuel research, development, and demonstration of Class 8 heavy-duty 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
92 

trucks and to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate its findings not later than 

100 days after enactment of this Act. 

As the Department focuses more efforts on developing new alternative fuels for automotive, power production, and industrial applications, research is needed to improve the efficiency and performance of alternative fuels rather than focusing solely on increased 

production. Better understanding of alternative fuel properties, 

combustion, and fluid dynamics can assist producers and engine 

manufacturers in achieving the clean utilization of alternative 

fuels. The Committee encourages the Department to support research that targets multidisciplinary efforts involving researchers, 

fuel producers, and end users to help develop a sustainable fuel industry from domestic sources. 

The recommendation includes $10,100,000, the same as the request, for the Supertruck program, a cost-shared project with industry to design a heavy-duty Class 8 truck with 50 percent improvement in overall freight efficiency. The Committee encourages 

the Department to identify further measures to leverage the success of the current program toward additional fuel economy gains 

and to incorporate alternatives to petroleum fuels in commercial 

vehicles. The Committee remains supportive of advancing technologies that will enable the next generation of vehicles powered by 

domestically-produced electricity. 

The recommendation includes no funding for Alternative Fuel 

Vehicle Community Partner Projects, $90,000,000 below the budget 

request. 

Advanced Manufacturing.—The Advanced Manufacturing program, formerly the Industrial Technologies program, invests in research and development to improve the competitiveness of American manufacturing by increasing the energy efficiency of manufacturing processes across a variety of industries. Energy usage is a 

large contributor to the cost of manufacturing, and reductions to 

energy expenditures can significantly lower manufacturing costs. 

The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for advanced manufacturing, $4,693,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $245,000,000 below 

the budget request. 

The recommendation supports the third year of funding for the 

Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub. The constrained supply 

of critical materials continues to be a serious concern for advanced 

energy, vehicle, and defense technologies. The Department is encouraged to address the domestic rare earth supply chain through 

the Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub and other means, including the investigation of cost-neutral opportunities such as recycling programs. 

Within available funds, the recommendation includes not less 

than $4,205,000 for improvements in production in the steel industry and $20,000,000 for combined heat and power activities relevant to industrial applications and energy savings in manufacturing processes. The Department is also encouraged to continue 

its efforts furthering improvements in mechanical insulation, an 

area with the potential to yield significant energy and cost savings 

for the industrial, commercial, and manufacturing sectors. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
93 

Building Technologies.—Buildings consume more than 40 percent 

of the nation’s energy and more than 70 percent of the nation’s 

electrical energy. The Building Technologies program seeks to save 

energy by advancing technologies in building systems and in appliances and devices within them. The Committee recommends 

$65,300,000 for Building Technologies, $153,385,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $234,700,000 below the request. The recommendation includes $6,000,000 for small-scale combined heat and power systems with applications in residential and 

small commercial settings and $25,800,000 for solid state lighting 

research and development. The Committee directs the Department 

to support the Building America program to the extent possible 

within available funding. The recommendation includes no funding 

for the Better Buildings Challenge, $9,500,000 below the request. 

The Committee directs the Department to work with its partner 

agencies, industry, and relevant university programs to complete a 

study, not later than eight months after enactment of this Act, of 

the potential benefits of a research and development program to 

improve the manufacturing of consumer electronics. The study 

should include, but not be limited to: the potential for manufacturing improvements, cost-effective ‘‘smart electronics’’ technologies 

that could further save consumers money and reduce the energy 

consumption of consumer electronics, and an evaluation of research 

and development approaches for increasing energy efficiency of consumer electronics. 

The Committee is aware that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 assigned the Department the role to develop energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, a responsibility which had previously been assumed by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Committee directs 

the Department to work closely with HUD, industry, and tenant 

groups to ensure that any proposed standards take equally into account the up-front cost of housing as well as lifecycle operating 

costs. 

The Committee supports measures in building energy codes that 

are cost-effective and demonstrate savings to the consumer, by 

using a simple payback methodology over a prescribed period of 

time. 

Geothermal Technologies.—Ground heat is a potentially large 

source of domestic energy that could be broadly tapped for power 

generation, heating, and cooling. The Committee recommends 

$12,000,000 for geothermal technology, $25,773,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $48,000,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes no funds for the $30,000,000 proposal for Enhanced Geothermal Systems Field Sites. The Department is encouraged in future budget requests to include details on 

out-year commitments. 

The United States Geological Survey has identified more than 

120 gigawatts of potential domestic energy from low-temperature 

geothermal sources. The Committee directs the Department to continue supporting a comprehensive program that will help the nation tap these vast resources and to consider the full authorized 

spectrum of geothermal technologies in order to maximize the use 

of domestic geothermal energy. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
94 

Solar Energy.—The Solar Energy program funds applied research, development, and demonstration of both photovoltaic and 

concentrating solar technologies to reduce the cost of solar power 

to economically competitive levels. The Committee recommends 

$65,300,000 for Solar Energy, $222,967,000 below fiscal year 2013 

and $291,200,000 below the budget request. 

Keeping American manufacturing competitive continues to be a 

major priority for the Committee across all technology areas, and 

the Committee encourages the Department to prioritize solar manufacturing initiatives within this program and, to the extent possible within available funding, to explore cross-cutting advanced 

solar films aimed at improving the cost-effectiveness of solar technologies. The Committee also supports research and demonstration 

projects to develop the needed integrated and smart grids to maximize the use of solar energy. 

Water Power.—The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for 

Water Power research and development, $34,647,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $31,000,000 below the budget request. Within available funding, the Committee directs $3,600,000 for the purposes of 

Section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The recommendation 

includes no funding for a deep tank wave test facility, $10,000,000 

below the request, and instead directs the Department to consult 

with the Navy about the potential for joint usage before making 

another capital investment request. 

The Committee commends the Department for its work in marine and hydrokinetic research, development, and demonstration, 

including tidal power. 

Wind Energy.—The Wind Energy program supports research and 

development to improve the reliability and decrease the cost of 

wind power. The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for Wind Energy, $69,034,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $120,000,000 below 

the budget request. 

The Committee continues to support wind activities with large 

generation potential that rely on technology innovations that would 

not be developed by the private sector alone. To this end, the Committee supports an emphasis on offshore wind technologies significantly more advanced and in deeper water than those being considered currently by the private sector. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$31,000,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure, $4,751,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $15,000,000 below the budget request, which includes activities at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL). The Committee supports the Department’s proposal to 

consolidate all NREL facility operations and maintenance into a 

single budgetary line within Facilities and Infrastructure. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The recommendation 

provides no funding for the Federal Energy Management Program, 

which seeks to mitigate energy costs of the federal government by 

assisting federal agencies in reducing their energy usage. 

FEDERAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends a total of $92,111,000 for federal energy assistance programs, $35,123,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$155,889,000 below the budget request. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
95 

Weatherization Assistance.—The Committee recommends 

$77,111,000 for the Weatherization Assistance Program, $9,518,000 

above fiscal year 2013 and $106,889,000 below the request, of 

which $2,500,000 is for training and technical assistance. 

State Energy Program.—The Committee recommends 

$12,000,000 for the State Energy Program, $37,701,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $45,000,000 below the request, all for formula 

grants. 

Tribal Energy Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$3,000,000 for tribal energy projects, $6,940,000 below fiscal year 

2013 and $4,000,000 below the budget request, to continue providing assistance to tribes for developing sustainable and economical energy solutions for their communities. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION AND SUPPORT

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $76,926,000 for 

program direction, $114,098,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$135,689,000 below the budget request, for activities previously 

funded separately within the Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program and the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

program. 

Strategic Programs.—The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for 

Strategic Programs, $22,851,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$34,000,000 below the budget request, to include $2,000,000 for the 

U.S.-Israel energy cooperative agreement. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $759,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 735,460,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 656,389,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥102,611,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥79,071,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

Nuclear power generates approximately one-fifth of the nation’s 

electricity and will continue to be an important base-load energy 

source in the future. The Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy 

program invests in research, development, and demonstration activities that develop the next generation of clean and safe reactors, 

further improve the safety of our current reactor fleet, and contribute to the nation’s long-term leadership in the global nuclear 

power industry. The Committee recommends $656,389,000 for Nuclear Energy, $102,611,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $79,071,000 below the 

budget request. Taking into consideration the budget request’s proposed shifts of $94,000,000 for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security into this account and $50,000,000 for Space and Defense Infrastructure out of this account and into NASA’s budget, only the 

latter of which is supported in this recommendation, the programmatic level for Nuclear Energy is $38,525,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $14,929,000 above the budget request. 

Use of Prior-Year Balances.—The Department is directed to use 

$5,000,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the request. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
96 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $387,329,000 for Nuclear Energy Research and Development, $59,754,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$14,929,000 above the budget request. 

Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.—The Committee recommends $66,748,000, $7,191,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$4,448,000 above the request, for this program that supports the 

full spectrum of nuclear research across the Department. The recommendation includes $14,563,000 for the National Science User 

Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory and $24,300,000 for the 

Modeling and Simulation Energy Innovation Hub, both the same as 

the request. 

Integrated University Program.—The Committee recommends 

$5,500,000 to continue the Integrated University Program, which is 

critical to ensuring the nation’s nuclear science and engineering 

workforce in future years. In addition to providing support to nuclear science and engineering undergraduate and graduate programs, the Committee recognizes the importance of skilled trade 

craft workers in ensuring the safe and reliable construction and 

maintenance of the nation’s nuclear fleet. Therefore, within the 

amounts provided, the Department shall investigate the current 

state of the nuclear trade craft workforce in the both the civilian 

and government nuclear sectors; projected changes in the workforce 

due to retirements and competition from other sectors; scope and 

implementation of craft training and apprenticeship programs; and 

opportunities to expand the breadth and quality of workforce training programs. The Department shall report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not 

later than July 2014 on its findings. 

Small Modular Reactor Licensing Support Programs.—The recommendation provides $110,000,000 for SMR Licensing Support 

Programs, $43,842,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $40,000,000 

above the request, to include $85,000,000 for the SMR Licensing 

Technical Support Program and $25,000,000 for the SMR Design 

Certification Program. 

The Committee notes the Department of Energy has modified the 

original criteria under which the SMR Licensing Technical Support 

Program was approved by the Congress. The original program 

called for $452,000,000 over five years for two awards of SMR designs, each of which was to have a utility partner to be eligible and 

a target commercialization date of 2022. At the end of these five 

years, the awardee would have a completed design certification and 

its utility partner a completed combined license or construction 

permit and operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct and operate the SMR design. Under these 

terms, the Department made one award. The recommendation provides $85,000,000 to keep that award on track for $226,000,000 

over five years. 

In fiscal year 2013, the Department has proposed a second funding opportunity with different criteria for at least one, but potentially two, SMR designs. The new award supports a more innovative technology demonstration, extends the program to six years, 

removes the eligibility requirement of a utility partner, and pushes 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
97 

the target commercialization date to 2025, plus or minus two years. 

At the end of the six-year program for this award, the technology 

vendor would have a design certification from the NRC, but not 

necessarily a combined license for a utility partner to construct and 

operate the new design. The recommendation includes $25,000,000 

for the second award, the same as the budget request. 

Of the funds previously made available under the SMR Licensing Technical Support Program prior to fiscal year 2014, $30,000,000 

shall be available to the SMR Design Certification Program. Furthermore, should the Administration select two SMR designs for 

the second funding opportunity, the Committee encourages the Department to submit adequate budget requests to fully support both 

designs in future fiscal years. 

Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration.— The Committee recommends $86,500,000 for this program, 

$27,591,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $14,000,000 above the 

budget request. The recommendation includes $20,000,000 for 

Small Modular Reactor Advanced Concepts Research and Development and $21,500,000 for Light Water Reactor Sustainability, both 

the same as the request. The recommendation provides $45,000,000 

for Advanced Reactor Concepts, $14,000,000 above the request, to 

include $30,000,000 for research of the fuel and graphite qualification program for the High Temperature Gas Reactor, which was 

funded under the Next Generation Nuclear Plant line in previous 

budgets. 

Fuel Cycle Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $91,081,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development, 

$93,915,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $74,019,000 below the request. The recommendation includes no funding to implement the 

Department’s proposed Strategy for the Management and Disposal 

of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste for storage, 

transportation, disposal, and strategic activities of used nuclear 

fuel disposition activities, some of which would only be necessary 

as a consequence of the Administration’s Yucca Mountain policy. 

Since Congress has not made any changes to the authorized plan 

of record, which continues to be Yucca Mountain, no funding is provided for the requested activities. 

Yucca Mountain.—The recommendation provides $25,000,000 to 

support the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository and recognize local communities who have formally consented 

to host it. 

International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.—The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for International Nuclear Energy Cooperation, $462,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget 

request. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Radiological Facilities Management program maintains safe 

and effective operation of the critical infrastructure that provides 

radioisotope power systems production capabilities for defense and 

space agency users. These outside users fund the Department’s 

operational, production, and research activities on a reimbursable 

basis. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management, $64,009,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
98 

same as the budget request. The recommendation supports the proposed relocation of the Space and Defense Infrastructure activity 

into NASA’s budget. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $181,560,000 for Idaho Facilities 

Management, $28,508,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as 

the request. In order to provide levels for energy research and development comparable across technologies, the recommendation for 

Nuclear Energy does not include the proposed shift of Idaho 

Sitewide Safeguards and Security from Other Defense Activities. 

However, the Committee does not object to this approach in concept. 

Construction.—The recommendation includes $16,398,000, the 

same as the request, for design and construction of the RemoteHandled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project, a joint project with 

Naval Reactors. 

The Committee continues to fund operations of the Idaho National Laboratories National Science User Facility within Nuclear 

Energy Enabling Technologies, as proposed in the budget request 

and adopted by the Congress in fiscal year 2012. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $87,500,000 for Program Direction, 

$2,356,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $534,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 420,575,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 450,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥84,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ +29,425,000 

*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

Fossil energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide approximately 82 percent of all energy used by the nation’s 

homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority 

of our needs for the foreseeable future. The Fossil Energy Research 

and Development program funds research, development, and demonstration activities to improve existing technologies and develop 

next-generation systems in the full spectrum of fossil energy areas. 

At a time when fossil fuel power generation is expanding around 

the globe and gas prices continue at high levels, the activities funded within this program advance our nation’s position as a leader 

in fossil energy technologies and ensure that we use the full extent 

of our vast domestic resources safely and efficiently. The Committee recommends $450,000,000 for Fossil Energy Re- search and Development, $84,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$29,425,000 above the budget request. 

Once again, the budget request proposes to focus funding within 

Fossil Energy Research and Development on carbon capture and 

sequestration technologies and projects. This focus underemphasizes two areas critical to our nation’s energy future: the efficient 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
99 

use of existing fossil energy resources and the full, safe, and responsible use of untapped domestic resources. The Committee recommendation increases funding in these areas to improve the efficiency of power generation and to bolster efforts that can help protect Americans from future high gasoline and diesel prices. Technological advances in these areas also will help American industry 

compete in the booming global marketplace for fossil energy technologies. 

The Committee notes that the Department of Energy’s National 

Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is a critical resource for the 

nation as it continues to expand the use and exploration of natural 

gas and other domestic fuel resources. The Committee believes the 

Department should continue to utilize the experience and expertise 

of NETL in these critical and growing research fields. 

Use of Prior-Year Balances.—The Department is directed to use 

$8,700,000 of prior-year balances, as proposed in the budget request. 

Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research Fund.—The recommendation does not include the 

proposed legislative repeal of this fund and its programs. 

Natural Gas Export Applications.—The Committee is concerned 

about the process and backlog at the Department of Energy for considering pending applications for natural gas export. Under current 

Department processes, the application for export to free trade 

agreement (FTA) countries is handled quickly and without objection. However, the Department’s handling of export applications to 

non-FTA countries has been prone to lengthy delays, with only two 

applications approved to date. The Committee notes that multiple 

applications have been pending at the Department for more than 

two years, and that the Department has not identified a plan to expeditiously process the remaining applications for export to nonFTA countries. The Committee supports a clearly communicated, 

timely process to make an appropriate determination on each of the 

pending applications at the Department and directs the Secretary 

to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate, not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, its plan to finish consideration of all applications 

filed with the Department. 

COAL—CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $315,856,000 for Carbon Capture 

and Sequestration (CCS) and Power Systems, $52,753,000 below 

fiscal year 2013 and $39,225,000 above the budget request. 

Funds made available for Carbon Capture, Carbon Storage, and 

Advanced Energy Systems shall be available to advance the full 

scope of technologies for the reduction of carbon emissions conducted at the National Carbon Capture Center, including direct 

carbon capture and technologies or methods to reduce the cost of 

or advance the efficiency or reliability of post-combustion capture 

technologies, pre-combustion capture technologies, and oxy-combustion systems. 

Carbon Capture.—The Committee recommends $68,938,000 for 

Carbon Capture, the same as fiscal year 2013 and $43,062,000 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
100 

below the budget request. The recommendation includes no funding 

for a Natural Gas Capture Prize. 

Carbon Storage.—The Committee recommends $79,295,000 for 

Carbon Storage, $36,182,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$18,200,000 above the budget request, to include $7,500,000 for additional support of enhanced oil recovery technologies and projects, 

which can advance American industry and clean fossil energy 

power generation while increasing domestic oil production, and 

$40,495,000 for Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships. 

Advanced Energy Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$91,687,000 for Advanced Energy Systems, $8,313,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $43,687,000 above the budget request. Of this 

amount, the recommendation includes $25,000,000, $25,000,000 

above the request, to continue the Department’s research, development, and demonstration of solid oxide fuel cell systems. These systems have the potential to increase substantially the efficiency of 

clean coal power generation systems, to create new opportunities 

for the efficient use of natural gas, and to contribute significantly 

to the development of alternative-fuel vehicles. Within available funds, the recommendation includes $5,000,000 

for coal-biomass to liquids activities, which seek to produce liquid 

fuels from blends of domestic coal and biomass resources with reduced emissions and land and water use through the integration 

of carbon capture and other technologies. 

The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for High Performance 

Materials within Advanced Combustion Systems and $8,000,000 

within Gasification Systems to continue activities improving advanced air separation technologies. 

Cross Cutting Research.—The Committee recommends 

$30,925,000 for cross cutting research, $18,238,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $10,400,000 above the budget request. The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for efforts associated with high 

temperature materials under the Advanced Ultra Super Critical 

Program to identify, test, qualify, and develop domestic suppliers 

capable of producing components from these materials. 

NETL Coal Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $45,011,000, $9,980,000 above fiscal year 2013 and 

$10,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes that 

this program was funded within Program Direction prior to fiscal 

year 2012. The Department is directed to continue including in the 

budget request all full-time equivalent employee information within this program, as it does under Program Direction. The recommendation includes $10,000,000 to perform an assessment and analysis of the feasibility of economically recovering rare 

earth elements from coal and coal byproduct streams, such as fly 

ash, coal refuse, and aqueous effluents. The Department is directed 

to report its findings and, if determined feasible, to outline a multiyear research and development program for recovering rare earth 

elements from coal and coal byproduct streams to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $7,200,000 for Natural Gas Technologies, $7,800,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $9,800,000 below 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
101 

the budget request. Of this amount, the recommendation includes 

$5,000,000 for research into the cost-effective and responsible extraction of methane hydrates, a vast and currently inaccessible resource whose total energy reserves rival those from all other known 

fossil fuels combined, and $2,200,000 for the Department to continue the Risk Based Data Management System. 

The recommendation provides no new funding for the proposed 

joint research effort with the Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Department of the Interior into hydraulic fracturing technologies, $12,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee 

notes the Department allocated $10,000,000 for this effort in fiscal 

year 2013 under the continuing resolution, despite no funding 

being allocated by the Environmental Protection Agency and significantly reduced funding being allocated by the United States Geological Survey. For fiscal year 2014, the Committee directs the Department to utilize these existing funds for this collaborative effort 

and further directs that no funds, whether prior or new, may be 

obligated until the Department submits a finalized interagency research plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $115,753,000 for Program Direction, 

$4,247,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. The Committee notes that the recommendation also provides 

funding within CCS and Power Systems for NETL Coal Research 

and Development, an activity funded within Program Direction 

prior to fiscal year 2012. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $14,909,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 20,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 14,909,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥5,091,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the 

national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900’s, and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 

1996 required the sale of the Government’s interest in the Naval 

Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR–1). To comply with this requirement, 

the Elk Hills field in California was sold to Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills, the transfer 

of the oil shale reserves, and transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

and environmental remediation of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 

(NPR–2) to the Department of the Interior, the Department retains 

one Naval Petroleum Reserve property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR–3) in Wyoming (Teapot Dome field). This is a stripper well oil field that the Department has maintained while it remained economically productive. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request proposes to accelerate environmental remediation responsibilities of NPR–1. As in fiscal year 

2013, it also focuses on implementation of a disposition plan for 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
102 

NPR–3 still being developed with production facilities remaining 

operational as long as economically viable. The budget request does 

not include funding for management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC) at NPR–3, proposing to allow only 

projects with fully reimbursable arrangements or fully funded by 

the Department’s Geothermal Technology Program. 

The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves is $14,909,000, the same as fiscal 

year 2013 and $5,091,000 below the budget request. Since development of the NPR–3 disposition plan continues to drag on, the Committee expects the Department to provide a final plan to the Committee for review prior to taking steps to implement the plan. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $192,704,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 189,400,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 189,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥3,304,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to store 

petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry out obligations 

under the international energy program. The capacity of the Reserve is 727 million barrels. The current inventory is 696 million 

barrels or approximately 93 days of net import protection for the 

United States economy. Operational activities, however, will leave 

approximately 70 million barrels unavailable for drawdown, thereby reducing the U.S. net import protection to 85 days. Additionally, 

damage at one storage tank reduces the drawdown rate to 4.25 million barrels per day from 4.4 million barrels per day. 

The Committee recommendation for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is $189,400,000, $3,304,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the 

same as the budget request. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $4,119,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 8,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 8,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +3,881,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the Northeast 

began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, through 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded contracts for the 

lease of commercial storage facilities and acquisition of heating oil. 

The purpose of the reserve is to assure home heating oil supplies 

for the Northeastern States during times of very low inventories 

and significant threats to the immediate supply of heating oil. The 

Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate entity 

from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The reserve contains one million barrels of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel 

(ULSD), with approximately one-half located in commercial faciliVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
103 

ties in Boston, Massachusetts and approximately one-half located 

in commercial facilities in Groton, Connecticut. 

In late 2012, over 121,000 barrels of the NEHHOR’s inventory 

was loaned to the Department of Defense in support of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency for use in emergency operations 

and support to the region affected by Hurricane Sandy. Additional 

exchanges with commercial terminals provided diesel fuel supplies 

for the state of Connecticut and the New York City, New York, 

area. All ULSD was returned to the NEHHOR by April 2013. 

The Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve is $8,000,000, $2,119,000 below fiscal year 2013 

(after accounting for a rescission of $6,000,000 of prior-year balances in fiscal year 2013) and the same as the budget request. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $105,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 117,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 100,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥17,000,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-independent agency within the Department of Energy established to 

provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related information 

to the Congress, the executive branch, state governments, industry, 

and the public. The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the 

Energy Information Administration, $5,000,000 below fiscal year 

2013 and $17,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recognizes that the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data are critical to the building 

industry. The 2003 CBECS remains the most current survey of 

commercial building efficiency. CBECS data are used in the development of ASHRAE building energy efficiency standards, the Energy Star program at U.S. EPA, the U.S. Green Building Council’s 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program, and 

Green Globes. To the extent possible within available funding, the 

Committee encourages the Energy Information Administration to 

complete the current CBEC survey and publish the results as soon 

as practical. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $235,721,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 212,956,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 194,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥41,721,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥18,956,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program includes 

funds to manage and cleanup sites used for civilian, energy research, and non-defense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination 

that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. The 

Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental CleanVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
104 

up is $194,000,000, $41,721,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$18,956,000 below the budget request. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $48,233,000 for Small 

Sites, $19,197,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $1,956,000 below the 

budget request. Within this amount, $40,000,000 is provided to accelerate removal of uranium mill tailings at Moab, $4,222,000 

above the budget request. The Department provided a report on its 

small sites cleanup activities in July 2012 that showed significant 

progress has been made at Argonne, Brookhaven, SLAC National 

Accelerator, and Lawrence Berkeley in recent years. However, the 

Department could not show that there had been comparative 

progress made at the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor 

(SEFOR) located at the University of Arkansas. The Department 

also did not provide a detailed action plan for cleanup as directed. 

Within funding for Small Sites, $2,000,000 is provided to develop 

an updated cost estimate for an accelerated phased cleanup plan 

that makes further progress for the decontamination and decommissioning of SEFOR. 

West Valley Demonstration Project.—The Committee recommends 

$47,000,000 for West Valley cleanup, $18,000,000 below fiscal year 

2013 and $17,000,000 below the budget request. The recommended 

level is reduced from the request in order to address cleanup activities at other sites which represent a higher risk to health and the 

environment. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $472,930,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 554,823,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 545,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +72,070,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥9,823,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to 

pay for the cleanup of gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, 

Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and the East Tennessee Technology 

Park, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee recommends 

$545,000,000 for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment 

Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, $72,070,000 above 

fiscal year 2013 and $9,823,000 below the budget request. The 

amounts specified for each site include funding requested for pension and community and regulatory support. The Committee has no 

need to establish separate reprogramming controls for pension and 

community and regulatory support as in the budget request. 

Oak Ridge.—The Committee recommends $186,167,000, 

$14,689,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $9,103,000 above the budget request. The Committee commends the Department for its recent 

progress on demolition of the K–25 Building. The Department reports it is now ahead of schedule on this massive cleanup project 

that has been plagued by past performance problems and tragedy. 

The recommendation supports completion of K–25, but defers the 

request to initiate new decontamination and decommissioning acVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
105 

tivities on the adjacent K–27 Building in order to accelerate other 

higher risk cleanup activities at the site. 

Paducah.—The Committee recommends $265,220,000 for Paducah, $183,413,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $3,163,000 above the 

budget request. The recommendation fully funds the transition of 

the Gaseous Diffusion Plant from the United States Enrichment 

Corporation to the Department of Energy. 

Portsmouth.—The Committee recommends $93,613,000 for Portsmouth, $96,654,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $1,795,000 above 

the budget request. 

Title X of the 1992 Act 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 

Department reports $32,756,000 in approved but unpaid claim balances and up to $241,495,000 in remaining potential liability for 

cleanup activities important to the health and safety of a number 

of communities. The Department should consider where progress 

can be made for site remediation and clean-up work at residential 

sites, public school properties, and other sensitive locations. 

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $4,876,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 5,152,752,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 4,653,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥223,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥499,752,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Office of Science funds basic science research across national 

laboratories, universities, and other research institutions in support of American innovation and the Department’s energy-focused 

missions. Through research in physics, biology, chemistry, and 

other science disciplines, these activities expand scientific understanding and secure the nation’s leadership in energy innovation. 

The Office of Science funds a significant portion of science research 

nationwide. 

The Science program office includes Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, 

Nuclear Physics, Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Safeguards and Security, and Science Program Direction. The Committee has placed a 

high priority on funding these activities within the limited resources available in fiscal year 2014. The private sector is not likely to invest in basic science, since the findings either have high 

non-commercial value or are not likely to be commercialized in the 

near or medium term. However, this work is very important to sustaining the scientific leadership of the United States and can provide the underpinnings for valuable intellectual property in the 

coming decades. The Committee recommendation is $4,653,000,000 for the Office 

of Science, $223,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $499,752,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee is concerned about the long-term science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce pipeline developVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
106 

ment for underrepresented minorities and notes the National Academies recommendation that the federal government offer support 

for undergraduate and graduate STEM programs focused on increasing the participation and success of minority students through 

engaged mentoring, enriching research experiences, and opportunities to publish, present, and network. 

Further, the Committee encourages the Department to develop 

and broaden partnerships with minority serving institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). In 

particular, the Committee encourages programs involving undergraduate research experiences, high speed computing access and 

education, nonproliferation studies, and research inclusive of the 

social sciences. The Committee recognizes the importance of workplace diversity in the Department of Energy’s National Laboratories and directs the Secretary of Energy, not later than 120 days 

after enactment of this Act, to provide a detailed plan on recruitment and retention of diverse talent that includes outreach and recruitment programs at HBCUs and other Minority Serving Institutions. 

Use of Prior-Year Balances.—The recommendation includes the 

use of $10,000,000 of prior-year balances, $10,000,000 more than 

the request. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program 

develops and hosts some of the world’s fastest computing and network capabilities to enable science and energy modeling, simulation, and research. The Committee recommends $432,365,000 for 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research, $8,460,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $33,228,000 below the budget request. 

Exascale Computing.—The Committee continues to support the 

exascale initiative, which seeks to develop the next generation of 

computing systems three orders of magnitude faster than today’s 

fastest systems. This decade-long effort is critical to enabling basic 

and energy-focused science research not previously possible and to 

maintaining the nation’s global leadership in computing technologies. The recommendation includes the requested level of 

$68,580,000 for the exascale initiative. 

High Performance Computing and Network Facilities.—In addition to the long-term exascale initiative, the Committee supports 

continued upgrade and operation of the Leadership Computing Facilities at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories and of 

High Performance Production Computing capabilities at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. These systems’ capabilities are a 

critical component of science and industrial research and development across the nation, and they should be maintained as worldleading facilities. The recommendation includes $148,500,000 for 

Leadership Computing Facilities and $62,000,000 for High Performance Production Computing. 

The recommendation includes the requested level of $32,608,000 

for High Performance Network Facilities and Testbeds (ESnet). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
107 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Basic Energy Sciences program funds basic research in materials science, chemistry, geoscience, and bioscience. The science 

breakthroughs in this program enable a broad array of innovations 

in energy technologies and other industries critical to American 

economic competitiveness. The Committee recommends 

$1,583,099,000 for Basic Energy Sciences, $106,396,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $279,312,000 below the budget request. 

The program’s budget consists of funding for research; the operation of existing user facilities; and the design, procurement, and 

construction of new facilities and equipment. The long-term success 

of the program hinges on striking a careful balance among these 

three areas. However, the increasing level of research commitments 

and completion of new facilities make it difficult to adequately fund 

all three components of the Basic Energy Sciences program within 

existing budgetary constraints. The Committee strongly cautions 

the Department against assuming an ever-increasing budget when 

planning the balance among facility runtime, construction, and research funding. 

The Committee recognizes the critical contribution that the program’s light sources, neutron sources, and other user facilities 

make to scientific discovery and American industry. The United 

States is currently host to the world’s most advanced and productive basic energy science user facilities, and the Department is 

urged to develop a plan for the next generation of light sources and 

other user facilities in order to maintain American leadership 

through the next decade. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $1,509,299,000 for Research within Basic Energy Sciences, $29,199,000 below fiscal year 

2013 and $231,812,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes $24,237,000 for the fourth year of 

the Fuels from Sunlight Energy Innovation Hub and $24,237,000 

for the second year of the Batteries Energy Innovation Hub, both 

the same as the request. The recommendation does not include 

funding for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 

Research, $8,520,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes not less than $60,000,000 for Energy Frontier Research Centers in fiscal year 2014, $40,000,000 

below the request, but does not provide $68,729,000 for one-time 

funding for additional Energy Frontier Research Centers as requested by the Department. The recommendation provides $64,200,000 for major items of equipment, to include $39,200,000 for the Advanced Photon Source 

Upgrade and $25,000,000 for the National Synchotron Light Source 

II (NSLS-II) Experimental Tools, both the same as the budget request. 

The recommendation provides $775,003,000 for facilities operations, which includes funding for individual scientific user facilities at their finalized fiscal year 2013 operating levels and 

$50,000,000 for NSLS-II early operations, $29,053,000 above fiscal 

year 2013 and $19,000,000 below the budget request. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $73,800,000 for 

Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, $77,197,000 below fisVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
108 

cal year 2013 and $47,500,000 below the budget request. The recommendation includes the first year of construction funding for the 

LINAC Coherent Light Source II two-tunnel upgrade project. 

The Committee is aware of the Department’s Critical Decision– 

0 that establishes the Department’s mission need for a novel freeelectron laser array light source. Should it choose to move forward 

with this project, the Office of Science is directed to submit a report 

to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate on how it intends to balance these project 

costs against BES research and facility runtime under a flat budget 

scenario. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Biological and Environmental Research program supports 

advances in energy technologies and related science through research into complex biological and environmental systems. The 

Committee recommends $494,106,000 for Biological and Environmental Research, $116,090,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$131,241,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee continues to support the Biological Systems 

Science program, which focuses on the biology of plants and microbes with the ultimate goal of enabling future generations of 

biofuels from a variety of sustainable domestic biomass sources. In 

addition to reducing our nation’s dependence on petroleum-based 

fuels with chronically high prices, the biofuels produced through 

this program’s science breakthroughs can lower the cost of, improve 

the sustainability of, and ease industry’s transition to those fuel alternatives. 

The recommendation includes $75,000,000, the same as fiscal 

year 2013 and the budget request, for the second year of the second 

five-year term of the three BioEnergy Research Centers. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports basic research 

and experimentation aiming to harness nuclear fusion for energy 

production. The Committee recommends $506,076,000 for fusion 

energy sciences, $104,968,000 above fiscal year 2013 and 

$47,752,000 above the budget request. 

The domestic fusion program is a critical component of United 

States science leadership and a necessary building block of any successful fusion projects, including the International Thermonuclear 

Experimental Reactor (ITER). The recommendation provides 

$288,576,000 for the domestic fusion program, $8,601,000 below fiscal year 2012—the last time Congress set forth a domestic fusion 

budget—and $55,252,000 above the request, of which $22,260,000 

is for operations and research at the Alcator C-Mod Facility at 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in fiscal year 2014. The recommendation includes $217,500,000 for the United States 

contribution to ITER, the international collaboration to construct 

the world’s first self-sustaining experimental fusion reactor, 

$93,500,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $7,500,000 below the budget request. 

Ten-Year Fusion Plan.—ITER is an important international collaboration that represents a major step forward in fusion energy 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
109 

science, but its funding requirements will create substantial budgetary challenges, throughout the decade. The Committee appreciates that the Office of Science is grappling with these challenges, 

but notes that the budget request does not strike the proper balance between the domestic fusion program and ITER. The Committee recommendation restores most of the proposed cuts to the 

domestic fusion program while also increasing ITER funding as the 

project enters its full construction phase. 

Looking forward, the increasing requirements for ITER will continue to pose challenges within the Science budget, and the Committee believes that long-term policy decisions for the Fusion Energy Sciences should be guided by impartial analysis of scientific 

needs and opportunities and with an eye on American competitiveness and leadership. The Committee therefore reiterates the importance of the ten-year plan for Fusion Energy Sciences directed in 

the fiscal year 2012 appropriations conference report; that plan’s 

timely delivery to Congress; and the inclusion of priorities across 

domestic and international fusion facilities, projects, and programs. 

As the Administration formulates this plan, the Committee notes 

that the level of funding for fusion should not be assumed to be 

flat. As the Department continues to assert, ITER is one of the top 

priorities of the nation’s science program as a whole, and as such 

should require investments across all programs within science. The 

current estimated cost share for the U.S. portion of the project is 

$2,400,000,000 to achieve first plasma, with additional funding required to operate and maintain the facility over its lifespan. With 

this significant investment, our nation must maintain a robust domestic program and expertise to benefit from the project’s eventual 

operation. 

ITER Project Directive.—The Committee is deeply concerned 

about the lack of transparency regarding the U.S. contribution to 

the ITER project, particularly given the scale and complexity of the 

project as it enters its full construction phase. The Department has 

yet to submit an ITER project data sheet, including a project baseline and cost schedule, both of which are instrumental to the Committee’s oversight role and consistent with all other DOE line-item 

construction projects. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to treat the U.S. contribution to ITER as a line-item construction project and directs the Department to submit a project 

baseline and cost schedule to the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 180 

days after enactment of this Act. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The High Energy Physics program supports fundamental research into the elementary constituents of matter and energy, and 

ultimately into the nature of space and time. The program focuses 

on particle physics theory and experimentation in three areas: the 

energy frontier, which investigates new particles and fundamental 

forces through high-energy experimentation; the intensity frontier, 

which focuses on rare events to better understand our fundamental 

model of the universe’s elementary constituents; and the cosmic 

frontier, which investigates the nature of the universe and its form 

of matter and energy on cosmic scales. The Committee recommends 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
110 

$772,521,000 for High Energy Physics, $17,074,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and $4,000,000 below the budget request. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $729,521,000 for Research, $32,148,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $12,000,000 below 

the budget request, which includes activities in proton, electron, 

non-accelerator, and theoretical physics. The recommendation includes $12,000,000 for operations of the Sanford Underground Research Facility, $2,000,000 above the request, as the Department 

continues to evaluate a path forward for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) and its alternatives. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $43,000,000 for construction, $15,074,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $8,000,000 above 

the budget request. The recommendation includes $35,000,000 for 

preliminary engineering design and construction of the Muon to 

Electron Conversion Experiment. 

The recommendation also includes $8,000,000 for project engineering and design activities of LBNE and its alternatives, 

$8,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation includes 

no funding for long-lead procurements or construction activities for 

the LBNE project. The Committee recognizes the importance of 

this project to maintaining American leadership in the intensity 

frontier and to basic science discovery of neutrino and standard 

model physics. However, the Committee also recognizes that LBNE 

construction must be affordable under a flat budget scenario. As 

such, the Committee supports the Office of Science’s challenge to 

the High Energy Physics community to identify an LBNE construction approach that avoids large out-year funding spikes or to identify viable alternatives with similar scientific benefits at significantly lower cost. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $551,913,000 for Nuclear Physics, 

$3,376,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $18,025,000 below the request. 

Operations and Maintenance.—The Committee recommends 

$526,413,000 for nuclear physics operations and maintenance, 

$27,743,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $18,025,000 below the 

budget request. The recommendation fully funds the request for 

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider Operations at $165,224,000 to support a standalone run of approximately 22 weeks in fiscal year 

2014. 

The recommendation also includes $55,000,000 to begin construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), $33,000,000 

above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. FRIB 

will serve as a facility with world-leading capabilities for shortlived radioactive beams and remains one of the highest priorities 

within the Nuclear Physics program. The Committee remains supportive of the next-generation machine that will advance understanding of rare nuclear isotopes and the evolution of the cosmos 

by testing the limits of nuclear existence. 

The Committee encourages the Office of Science to ensure that 

commercial isotope producers have a direct working relationship 

with user facilities on day-to-day operational matters as it conVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
111 

tinues its effort to coordinate isotope production activities across 

the DOE complex. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $25,500,000, 

$24,367,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request, to continue construction of the 12 GeV Upgrade of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility. 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $16,500,000 for workforce develop- ment for teachers and scientists, $1,951,000 below fiscal year 2013 

and the same as the budget request. The Committee notes that the 

budget request proposes to consolidate STEM education programs 

under education-oriented agencies—a move the Committee is still 

evaluating—but the Office of Science Graduate Fellowship program 

was not included in the consolidation. The Committee directs the 

Department to consult with the National Science Foundation about 

lack of funding for this program and to report its findings not later 

than 60 days after enactment of this Act to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $46,558,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, $64,945,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$51,260,000 below the budget request. For construction, the recommendation provides only the estimated level of funding that can 

be executed within fiscal year 2014 for the three projects proposed 

in the budget request. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $85,000,000 to meet safeguards and 

security requirements at Office of Science facilities, $3,218,000 

above fiscal year 2013 and $2,000,000 below the budget request. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $174,862,000 for Science Program 

Direction, $9,646,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $18,438,000 below 

the budget request. This level of funding is equal to the Department’s finalized operating plan in fiscal year 2013. 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $265,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 379,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 50,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥215,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥329,000,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E) supports research aimed at rapidly developing energy technologies 

whose development and commercialization are too risky to attract 

sufficient private sector investment, but that are capable of significantly changing the energy sector to address our critical economic 

and energy security challenges. Projects funded by ARPA–E include such wide-ranging areas as production processes for transporVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
112 

tation fuel alternatives that can reduce our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling technologies with exceptionally high 

energy efficiency, and improvements in petroleum refining processes. While the Committee remains supportive of ARPA–E’s efforts for stimulating innovation and appreciative of the reforms it 

has fostered at the Department, limited resources available in fiscal year 2014 constrain the amount available for this program. The 

Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency—Energy, $215,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$329,000,000 below the budget request. The Department shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 30 days after enactment 

of this Act on its needs for program direction funding within this 

amount. 

The Committee is pleased with ARPA–E’s increased focus on 

transportation technologies and urges the program to continue supporting research and development that can make a substantial difference to the impact of future high gas prices on American families and businesses. 

TITLE 17 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $38,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 48,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 22,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥16,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥26,000,000 

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $¥38,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... ¥22,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥22,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +16,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... $26,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... – – – 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥26,000,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The budget request for the Loan Guarantee program includes administrative expenses of $48,000,000, which are partially offset by 

fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act. 

The Committee recommends administrative expenses of 

$22,000,000, which are fully offset by fees collected, for a final net 

appropriation of $0. Funding for administrative expenses has been 

limited to the amount projected to be collected in fees, which the 

Congressional Budget Office has estimated to fall due to a reducVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
113 

tion in the throughput of loan guarantee actions in fiscal year 

2014. 

The recommendation includes language prohibiting the Department from subordinating U.S. interests in any loan guarantee in 

violation of existing law or regulation. In addition, the Committee 

expects the Department to provide quarterly updates to the Committee on the health of its existing portfolio. 

The Committee is aware of discrepancies between public statements made by the Department of Energy regarding the status of 

loan guarantee applications and the understanding by the applicants of the status of their applications. Not later than 60 days following enactment of this Act, the Department shall submit a report 

to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate including the following information: 

(1) The number of applicants originally selected by DOE to 

proceed under Loan Guarantee Solicitation Number DE–FOA– 

0000008, the dollar amount requested in loan guarantee authority by each project, and the stage of the application consideration process for each applicant; 

(2) A clear explanation of DOE’s classification of stages of 

the application consideration process and DOE’s use of an ‘‘inactive’’ designation in regard to an applicant during any of the 

stages; and 

(3) Whether White House approval is involved at any stage 

of the approval process other than the required OMB review of 

the credit subsidy cost and, if so, which office of the White 

House and the nature of the approval. 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $6,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established 

a direct loan program to support the development of advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the United States. 

The program provides loans to automobile and automobile part 

manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and for associated engineering integration costs. 

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, the same as fiscal 

year 2013 and the budget request. The funds provided support administrative operations only. 

The Committee notes that the Department of Energy closed its 

most recent loan in March 2011, and has zero active applications 

for the $4,200,000,000 in remaining credit subsidy appropriations. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit a plan for this 

program to best use limited taxpayer funding to best support 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
114 

American competitiveness and innovation including, if appropriate, 

a request to rescind funding. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $237,623,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 226,580,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 187,863,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥49,760,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥38,717,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $¥108,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... ¥108,188,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥108,188,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥188,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $129,623,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 118,392,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 79,675,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥49,948,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥38,717,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $187,863,000, $49,760,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$38,717,000 below the budget request. The recommendation for 

revenues is $108,188,000 as requested, resulting in a net appropriation of $79,675,000. 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. 

Idle Reduction Strategies.—The Committee is aware that the Department owns or operates more than 14,000 vehicles, including 

mission critical Light-Duty trucks, passenger vans, Medium-Duty, 

and Heavy-Duty vehicles. While the Committee is aware of the Department’s broader plans, it is most interested in strategies that 

develop petroleum reduction and corresponding emissions reductions in an affordable and cost effective way. The Committee is 

aware that idle reduction strategies and technologies currently 

being utilized by the private sector may offer a net cost savings to 

the end user and directs the Department’s Sustainability Performance Office to provide the Committee with a report no later than 

90 days after enactment of this Act on the potential benefits, cost 

effectiveness, and role of idle reduction in its Performance Plan for 

its fleet vehicles in the operation and performance of DOE’s vehicle 

fleet. 

Office of the Secretary.—The recommendation includes 

$4,986,000, $22,000 below the budget request. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
115 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer.—The recommendation includes $50,104,000 for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 

$1,100,000 below the budget request, and moves travel-related activities to the Office of Management. 

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.—The recommendation includes $4,000,000, $700,000 below the request. 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.—The Committee 

recommends $3,000,000 for this office, $494,000 above the budget 

request, to coordinate and implement energy management, conservation, education, and delivery systems for Native Americans. 

Office of Economic Impact and Diversity.—The Committee recommends $1,600,000 for Minority Economic Impact, $500,000 

above the budget request. The recommendation also includes 

$6,197,000 for Program Direction, $850,000 below the budget request, and moves the Ombudsman to the Office of Management. 

Office of Human Capital.—The recommendation includes 

$20,815,000 for the Office of Human Capital, $3,673,000 below the 

budget request. 

Office of Management.—The Committee recommends $49,294,000 

for the Office of Management, $6,405,000 below the budget request, 

and shifts activities from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

and the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity. 

Office of Policy and International Affairs.—The Committee recommends no funding for this office. The Committee is aware that 

program offices at DOE also conduct international activities, and 

that the Department of State is now fulfilling some diplomatic 

functions this office once performed. The Committee supports efforts to consolidate strategic policy analysis capabilities within a 

single office at the Department of Energy. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $42,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 42,120,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 42,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥120,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performs agency-wide 

audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct 

management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions 

for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and performance audits 

of programs and operations. The inspections function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, 

and economy of programs and operations. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel and operations. 

The Committee recommendation is $42,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2013 and $120,000 below the budget request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security Administration 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
116 

consist of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, 

Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator; outside of the 

NNSA, these include Defense Environmental Management and 

Other Defense Activities. Descriptions of each of these accounts are 

provided below. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology and reducing the global danger from the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Department, 

carries out these responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2000, the NNSA is responsible for the management and operation of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex, naval reactors, and 

nuclear nonproliferation activities. The Office of the NNSA Administrator oversees all NNSA programs. 

Contract and Project Management Reforms.—The Committee recognizes the considerable reforms that have been implemented to 

better understand the cost of NNSA programs, to improve project 

management, and to hold contractors more accountable for performance by enforcing existing contract options and using contract 

mechanisms that more evenly share risk between the federal government and its contractors. These fundamental contract and management reforms have been sorely needed and will give NNSA 

managers tools that are critical for effective federal oversight. The 

Committee notes that progress has been made, recognized by the 

removal of some of the NNSA’s projects from the Government Accountability Office’s annual high-risk list. However, the NNSA will 

only be able to prove it can competently manage its operations 

through continued and consistent application of these management 

tools. As senior leadership changes within the Department and the 

NNSA, the Committee stresses the importance of continuing and 

accelerating the pace of management reform not just to prevent 

waste of taxpayer funds, but also to ensure that the NNSA is able 

to ultimately achieve its mission. 

Security Reforms.—The Committee encourages continued reform 

and management improvements that will ensure the NNSA is able 

to meet high performance standards for physical protection of special nuclear materials. In particular, the Committee supports efforts to develop security expertise within the NNSA federal workforce and to empower those federal managers to take ownership of 

their roles and responsibilities for ensuring the overall effectiveness of security at the NNSA sites. While reforms to date have focused on improving the identification of security deficiencies, the 

Committee is concerned that the NNSA has still not demonstrated 

it is able to take prompt corrective action after it has identified 

those deficiencies. 

Additionally, there are still considerable problems with maintaining security systems and managing projects to upgrade those systems. The NNSA is currently overseeing two major security upgrades which have been severely mismanaged and which have directly impacted security effectiveness at those sites. The botched 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
117 

security project at the Y–12 National Security Complex directly 

contributed to the poor response by protective forces during the security incursion in July 2012 by generating excessive nuisance 

alarms. Additional protective forces have had to make up for an extended degraded status of the security systems at Los Alamos National Laboratory after the contractor incorrectly installed the new 

system and work was abruptly halted in October to prevent an 

Anti-Deficiency Act violation. The NNSA must demonstrate its federal managers can competently oversee projects without degrading 

security performance as it makes the investments it needs to maintain its systems. 

Additional Actions to Address Security of Nuclear Materials.— While some limited reform actions have begun and show promise, 

the sheer magnitude of the problems that are pervasive in the 

NNSA’s federal oversight culture make it essential that the Administrator and the Secretary work together to perform a concerted, 

high-level management review of the security of special nuclear 

materials. These issues will take years to address if the NNSA relies only on its current set of identified reforms, and the Committee 

is not content with a protracted timescale. 

There is already a loss of exigency for reform as leadership turns 

over. The previous Secretary of Energy appointed three experts to 

undertake a review of security management, but none of the reforms recommended by his experts have been implemented. The 

DOE Inspector General has recommended a re-evaluation of the 

current structure of the Department’s physical security apparatus 

that places all options on the table, but no such re-evaluation has 

taken place. The Department must consider all options, including 

new contract mechanisms and federalization of the security workforce, to drive wholesale near-term improvements in how it ensures 

the effectiveness of security at its sites. Contrary to previous assumptions that federalization would drive up costs, new analysis 

from the DOE Inspector General suggests there may actually be 

cost savings associated with federalization. While the Committee 

does not advocate federalization at this point, it should be an option that is considered. The Committee directs the NNSA, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to conduct a comprehensive 

review of available options for more fundamental security management reform and to provide a report on its review to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. In its 

report, the NNSA should include a comparison of the cost, benefits, 

effectiveness, timeline to implement, and feasibility of implementation for a variety of alternatives, to include federalization and new 

contracting mechanisms. 

Program Efficiencies.—The NNSA request assumed more than 

$300,000,000 in program ‘‘efficiencies’’ that must be realized to 

allow the NNSA to attain its objectives for fiscal year 2014, but did 

not provide any information on how it would achieve these efficiencies and the impact to NNSA goals if they are not realized. The 

Committee agrees that there are actions that the NNSA could take 

to reduce unnecessary administrative and overhead costs. In order 

to help achieve these savings, the recommendation includes a provision that limits Laboratory-Directed Research and Development 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
118 

(LDRD) for all Department of Energy laboratories to 4.5 percent in 

fiscal year 2014 and thereafter. This limitation will effectively 

serve to bring funding for LDRD at the national security labs to 

the same percentage amount as those provided for other DOE labs 

and should free as much as $100,000,000 to be used for stockpile 

work. 

Tritium and Enriched Uranium Management.—The NNSA has 

yet to provide the Committee with a report that outlines how it will 

manage tritium and enriched uranium supplies to fully meet all 

stockpile needs. As a result, the bill contains a statutory reporting 

requirement to ensure that the NNSA meets this outstanding requirement. 

Pensions.—The Committee remains concerned about the continually escalating costs of contractor pensions and other postretirement benefits and their impacts on programmatic activities. The 

fiscal year 2014 request for legacy contractor pensions is 

$373,300,000, an increase of $132,477,000, or 55 percent, over fiscal 

year 2013. From the additional information provided in the budget 

request, it is clear that benefits offered to contractor employees 

vary widely across the nuclear security enterprise and the NNSA 

has adopted a limited and piecemeal approach to reform. The Committee supports continued review of pension and other postretirement benefits offered to contractor employees and the expeditious 

implementation of fair reforms to ensure rising costs do not impact 

ongoing high priority programmatic activities. Given that many of 

the site operating contracts will be re-competed or renewed in the 

coming years, the NNSA should evaluate what contract mechanisms are appropriate and available to bring uniformity and certainty to contractor pensions and post-retirement benefits moving 

forward. 

The Committee recommends $11,266,000,000 for the NNSA, 

$235,644,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $386,469,000 below the 

budget request. After accounting for the rescissions in title V, the 

recommendation includes $11,104,000,000 for the NNSA, 

$397,644,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $548,469,000 below the 

budget request. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2013* .......................................................................... $7,577,341,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 7,868,409,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 7,675,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +97,659,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥193,409,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and performance of the nation’s nuclear weapons 

stockpile. The activities funded under this appropriation include 

the maintenance and refurbishment of nuclear weapons to sustain 

confidence in their security, safety, and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms reduction treaties. The Committee recommends a fiscal year 2014 program level of 

$7,675,000,000 for Weapons Activities, $97,659,000 above fiscal 

year 2013 and $193,409,000 below the budget request. After accounting for the rescission of $142,000,000 in title V of this bill, the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
119 

recommendation for net budget authority is $7,533,000,000, 

$44,341,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $335,409,000 below the 

budget request. 

Overall Funding Levels.—The recommendation approves the 

NNSA’s request to provide funding for Nuclear Incident Response 

and the Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation programs within funding for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, instead of within 

Weapons Activities as in fiscal year 2013. After accounting for this 

transfer, the recommended program level (including stockpile work, 

campaigns, infrastructure, security and other activities) is 

$361,001,000 above fiscal year 2013. Within the overall level, the 

Committee’s recommendation fully funds the increases necessary to 

support the core requirements to ensure the reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, but limits the amount of funding 

available to explore new stockpile concepts. The recommendation 

also takes advantage of significant savings that are available from 

prior-year funds that can no longer be executed to meet deficit reduction needs. With the high costs associated with extending the 

life of the W76, B61, and W88 and constructing the Uranium Processing Facility, the Committee cannot support large increases for 

activities that are not required for stockpile sustainment and must 

find savings that are available for deficit reduction where they will 

not impact progress of those high priority activities. 

Stockpile Transformation.—In January 2013, the Nuclear Weapons Council made a decision that its ‘‘3+2’’ strategy (3 ballistic missile warheads and 2 air delivered warheads) will serve as the longterm vision for the stockpile. Since then, the NNSA has provided 

little explanation or analysis on the force structure implications or 

the costs to achieve that strategy. 

In addition, the strategy relies on the NNSA’s ability to prove it 

can reliably certify a new warhead design and to produce 30 pits 

per year by 2021, a condensed timeline that will require significant 

capital investments for which the NNSA has not provided an executable plan. The Committee will not support dedicating significant 

funding for new stockpile transformation concepts unless the Administration can more clearly lay out its rationale and the NNSA 

can prove that it is taking a conservative approach that accounts 

for all costs, is executable in the timeframes needed, is technically 

feasible, and has demonstrable benefits that justify such a large investment. 

Acquisition Program Improvements.—The bill contains a general 

provision which requires an analysis of alternatives be prepared for 

all major warhead refurbishment activities. This requirement is established to strengthen the joint Department of Energy-Department of Defense phase 6.x process and to better conform to the Department of Defense’s major acquisition process. That process entails, among other requirements, that a suitable number of feasible 

alternatives are analyzed prior to making costly investment decisions, that a trade-off analysis of the costs and benefits has been 

performed, and that the alternative selected has been certified to 

be affordable. This supporting information will provide a analytical 

basis for the NNSA’s claims that its budget request contains funding for only the best possible programs, in a rational, defensible 

manner, considerate of the risk and uncertainty. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
120 

Certification of New LEP Concepts.—The Committee is concerned 

that new design concepts being considered do not have a sound scientific and analytical basis to ensure those warheads can be certified. Further, surety and maintainability improvements may introduce unnecessary risk into systems that must be highly reliable 

and whose performance cannot be verified through nuclear testing. 

In order to ensure that the NNSA has a sound technical basis for 

warhead upgrades that include insertion of new surety improvements and pit production, the Committee directs the NNSA to 

work with the JASONs defense advisory group to provide a report 

not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act on the need to 

incorporate insensitive high explosives into future life extensions, 

the certification risks of using and replacing conventional and insensitive high explosives in remanufactured and reuse pits, and the 

maturity of the NNSA’s ability to remanufacture and certify legacy 

pits in future life extension reuse applications. 

Production Capabilities.—The recommendation includes increases to address inadequate funding in the budget request for the 

W76 and B61 Life Extension Programs (LEP), dismantlement, and 

production support. These gaps are further examples of the NNSA’s 

troubling history of insufficiently planning for its ongoing production requirements. The NNSA was never able to achieve the production rates it had planned for the W76 LEP, and now its support 

for the program continues to wane as it cuts overall production 

amounts. Pantex has experienced unexpected maintenance needs 

that have slowed production during 2013 and will be implementing 

a new resource planning system which may cause the NNSA to 

miss some of its planned deliverables for the year. The NNSA is 

also transitioning its Kansas City operations to its new facility, 

which will add even more risk to its ability to stay on track with 

its production requirements. While considerable time is being spent 

exploring new stockpile management concepts, there are very real 

challenges to the enterprise that require focused attention of leadership to overcome. Meeting the ongoing production deliverables for 

the stockpile represents the highest priority for the Committee. 

The NNSA must demonstrate sustained performance in meeting its 

deliverables before it will have sufficient credibility to gain support 

for new stewardship concepts for the nuclear weapons stockpile. 

Nuclear Programs.—The NNSA requested to fund some activities 

under a new Government and Performance Results Act (GPRA) 

unit called Nuclear Programs, despite the fact that it did not identify any new performance measures associated with those activities. This new GPRA unit was presumably proposed, in part, to 

align funding as the NNSA reorganizes management within the Office of Defense Programs and the Office of Infrastructure and Operations. The Committee has selectively funded the activities requested under Nuclear Programs using the existing budget structure. The Committee does not require additional funding controls 

for these activities, and the NNSA’s internal reorganization may be 

carried out using existing budget lines. However, there is a standing need to improve the visibility and justification for new investments within the NNSA budget request. The Committee will consider changing the congressional budget structure for the purposes 

of improving transparency of the full cost of operations through 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
121 

consolidation, achieving operational efficiencies, or reducing waste, 

but not for bureaucratic reorganizations and not for new funding 

lines that are poorly justified. The Committee’s recommendation 

simplifies budgeting controls to permit flexibility in carrying out 

activities, while requiring more detail in the NNSA’s budget request justification materials to enhance the transparency of how 

the NNSA intends to use its funding. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification, dismantlement, and 

disposal activities. The Committee recommends $2,718,409,000 for 

Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), $602,474,000 above fiscal year 

2013 and $289,893,000 above the budget request. The Committee 

recommendation includes tritium production; manufacturing development for warhead components and life extension programs 

(LEPs); and, for the first time, funding for processing, storing, and 

planning for nuclear, high explosive and other stockpile materials 

since these activities are directly related to stockpile production activities. 

B61 Life Extension Program (LEP).—The Committee recommends $560,744,000, $23,700,000 above the budget request, in 

order to address a funding gap in the request compared to the B61 

Weapons Design Cost Report (WDCR) that was associated with unspecified program efficiencies. The NNSA must have a solid basis 

for reductions it proposes to the validated cost profile, with a clear 

explanation for how those changes will impact the cost and schedule for that LEP. The WDCR identified another $811,000,000 that 

would eventually be needed to support the B61 LEP, but did not 

adequately identify where those activities would be funded in the 

budget request or provide a valid rationale for why they should not 

be considered part of the cost of the B61 LEP. In order to ensure 

full funding, the recommendation includes $67,000,000 requested 

under Component Manufacturing Development to directly support 

the B61 LEP. 

The Committee expects the NNSA to improve the quality of the 

information provided and the frequency of reporting to establish 

that it has adequately planned to meet its requirements. The 

NNSA has selected an expensive alternative to extend the life of 

the B61 in order to improve maintainability by reducing the number of weapon mods, but has not provided any analysis of the costs 

and benefits for that selection as required by the reporting requirements for early life extension activities set in fiscal year 2012. The 

high cost of the B61 LEP will continue to drive near-term budgetary requirements and will limit funding available for follow-on 

LEP activities. Since the B61 LEP has recently obtained its phase 

6.3 milestone, the bill contains a provision that requires submission 

of a report on alternatives and certification of the affordability of 

the alternative selected. While the NNSA prepares this required information, refurbishment work must move forward expeditiously to 

meet U.S. commitments to NATO. An investigation by the GAO 

completed in 2011 concluded that NNSA could not ensure it would 

be able to maintain U.S. capability to support its NATO commitVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
122 

ments if the B61 program were further delayed. Not meeting those 

commitments could cast doubts on the U.S. resolve to maintain a 

nuclear umbrella for its allies, potentially unraveling decades of 

nonproliferation efforts. In light of current events including the 

growing missile threat from North Korea, sending such a message 

would be dangerous and irresponsible. 

W76 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$248,454,000, $13,072,000 above the budget request. The budget 

request continues to inadequately fund activities that are essential 

to meet production needs of the W76. In addition, the budget request proposes changes to the production schedule for the W76 that 

would reduce the overall number of W76’s well below the New 

START treaty levels. However, the Administration has not explained how those lower numbers would affect the deterrence capabilities of the most survivable leg of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. In 

addition, the NNSA request for the W76 continues to bank on cost 

efficiencies that the DOE Inspector General has reported are unlikely to be realized. The Committee will continue to prioritize ongoing production within its recommendation to meet existing commitments. 

W78 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$50,000,000, $22,691,000 below the budget request. The recommendation provides funding to continue a study to extend the 

life of the W78 warhead, as opposed to the budget request to discontinue funding for the broader study and to initiate a W78/88– 

1 Life Extension Program. 

On April 21, 2011, the Department notified the Committee of its intent to use $26,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 funding to ‘‘initiate 

the Concept Assessment Study for the W78 Life Extension Program 

. . . and to expand the scope of the study to include exploration of 

a joint W78/W88 warhead.’’ In fiscal year 2012, the Committee provided another $37,087,000 to advance the life extension study into 

phase 6.2. The production of an integrated warhead to replace the 

W78 represents one alternative for sustaining the role of the W78. 

The recommendation permits continued consideration of an integrated warhead, but only as part of a continued study of alternatives. The NNSA has a standing requirement to provide a preliminary estimate of the costs and schedule requirements, description of alternatives, and a technology maturation plan upon entry 

into Phase 6.2a of the study. The bill contains a general provision 

which requires the NNSA to provide a report and a certification for 

the W78 at the Phase 6.3 milestone. To meet this requirement, the 

NNSA should ensure its study work continues to consider an appropriate and diverse set of alternatives as it carries out its ongoing Phase 6.2/6.2a work. 

W88 Alt 370.—The Committee recommends $169,487,000, the 

same as the budget request. This funding will support a 

$1,500,000,000 alteration to replace the arming, fusing; and firing 

assembly of the W88–0/Mk 5, which is in its third decade of life 

and requires action to address aging issues. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee recommends $454,488,000, 

the same as the budget request. The NNSA may conduct conceptual study activities within stockpile systems to explore concepts 

for extending the life of the stockpile, subject to meeting the standVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
123 

ing reporting requirements for early life extension activities as directed by the Committee in fiscal year 2012. If the NNSA wishes 

to commence a 6.2 study or perform further development in support of an integrated warhead or life extension study for the W80, 

it must formally request funding for a new life extension program 

in a future year budget request. 

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.—The Committee recommends $55,264,000, $6,000,000 above the budget request. The 

NNSA continues to cut funding for dismantlement, despite a clear 

requirement to continue to dismantle warheads, sustain production 

line capacity, and harvest materials for recycling to meet stockpile 

needs. The Committee will not support further reductions to dismantlement funding unless the NNSA demonstrates it will meet 

its overall commitments for dismantlement and provides a severely 

overdue production plan. 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee recommends $1,179,972,000, 

$262,222,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $269,812,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation includes select 

funding requested under Readiness Campaign and Nuclear Programs that is directly associated with stockpile production. 

The NNSA needs to make considerable improvements in its cost 

estimating and planning capabilities that support its major stockpile acquisition activities. The Committee recommendation reduces 

funding requested for Research and Development Certification and 

Management, Technology and Production since the NNSA has not 

clearly demonstrated why such a large increase is needed to meet 

ongoing annual assessment and certification needs of the stockpile. 

The NNSA should not fund new development, including maturation 

of surety, use control, or other technology upgrades under consideration for insertion as part of life extensions within Stockpile Services, but should clearly account for those costs within funding for 

that life extension program or refurbishment activity. 

Production Support.—The Committee recommends $345,000,000, 

$4,531,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $23,584,000 above the budget request. The recommendation includes additional funding above 

the request to address gaps in maintenance funding for the W76. 

No funding is provided for infrastructure upgrades to support new 

production capabilities for future LEPs since that funding is provided separately within Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. 

Research and Development and Program Readiness Support.— 

The Committee recommends $93,608,000 within a new combined 

reporting and reprogramming control. The recommendation combines the full amount requested for Research and Development 

Support and the full amount requested for Program Readiness 

within Nuclear Programs. The Committee does not require separate reprogramming controls for planning, training, personnel, and 

other Defense Programs support-type activities. Combined funding 

will permit more integrated management of these related activities, 

and the NNSA should eliminate duplication and seek further efficiencies where possible. 

Plutonium Sustainment.—The Committee recommends 

$138,000,000, $2,070,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $18,949,000 

below the budget request, for sustainment of plutonium production 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
124 

capabilities and to reconstitute capabilities to manufacture power 

sources. 

Tritium Readiness.—The Committee recommends $80,000,000, 

$11,695,000 below the amount requested for Tritium Readiness 

within the Readiness Campaign. The recommendation does not provide funding to fuel reactors at the Tennessee Valley Authority 

that are not actively being used for tritium production. 

Component Manufacturing Development.—The Committee recommends $67,000,000, $39,085,000 below the amount requested for 

Component Manufacturing Development within the Readiness 

Campaign. The Committee recommendation provides a separate 

funding line to develop stockpile manufacturing technologies and 

processes for the B61 LEP primarily to ensure that the B61 LEP 

is fully funded, but the NNSA’s justification for the remaining activities in the request is vague. 

Material Processing and Storage.—The Committee recommends 

$165,231,000. The recommendation combines the full amounts requested for Material Recycle and Recovery and Storage within Nuclear Programs. No funding is provided to begin stockpiling and 

processing additional plutonium at Los Alamos. The plutonium facilities at Los Alamos are in need of seismic upgrades, and there 

is an outstanding recommendation from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board that indicates the NNSA should take all measures to limit or reduce the amount of nuclear material at risk at 

Los Alamos until it completes those upgrades. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons laboratories, the Nevada National Security Site, the weapons production plants, and selected external organizations to address critical 

capabilities needed to achieve program objectives. For Campaigns, 

the Committee recommends $1,626,099,000, $66,062,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $84,866,000 below the budget request. 

Science Campaign.—The Committee recommends $397,902,000, 

the same as the budget request. The recommendation supports a 

substantial increase for a robust experimental effort to better understand the properties of plutonium and to ensure the NNSA can 

support pit certification requirements for future LEPs. 

Engineering Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$149,911,000, the same as the budget request. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign.—The 

Committee recommends $513,957,000, $112,914,000 above the 

budget request. Within these funds, $66,000,000 is for the OMEGA 

Laser Facility at the University of Rochester. Also within these 

funds, $329,000,000 is provided for operation of the National Ignition Facility (NIF). The NNSA requested $113,000,000 for NIF operations within its request for Site Stewardship. The recommendation consolidates total funding for NIF facility operations within 

Campaigns, consistent with how facility operations are funded for 

Z, OMEGA, and the scientific computing facilities. The NNSA is directed to budget for NIF operations in future budget requests in 

one location within Campaigns in order to provide better transparency into the total costs of operating the facility. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
125 

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.—The Committee recommends $564,329,000, the same as the budget request. 

The Committee strongly supports the advancement of computing 

capabilities within the NNSA’s ASC campaign since these resources are essential to maintaining the stockpile. However, funding is reduced from the fiscal year 2013 level to account for savings 

that are available due to completion of Sequoia at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the existence of $40,000,000 in 

prior-year balances. 

Readiness Campaign.—The Committee recommends no funding 

to continue work under the Readiness Campaign. The production 

of tritium and other production support activities requested within 

the Readiness Campaign are instead provided under Directed 

Stockpile Work since those activities directly support stockpile production needs. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) provides 

funding for the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization of 

NNSA facilities and infrastructure. The Committee recommends 

$1,909,674,000 for RTBF, $234,596,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$1,909,674,000 above the budget request. The Committee continues 

funding for the NNSA’s infrastructure operations and construction 

within RTBF as in fiscal year 2013 and prior years, instead of 

within funding for Site Stewardship as in the budget request. In 

the past, the NNSA has failed to adequately fund facility maintenance and recapitalization needs, and the recommendation includes 

funding above the request within maintenance and repair of facilities to address these historic shortfalls. The recommendation no 

longer includes funding for Program Readiness, Material Recycle 

and Recovery, Containers, Storage and the National Ignition Facility as in fiscal year 2013. 

Operations of Facilities.—The Committee recommends 

$984,455,000, $984,455,000 above the budget request. The recommendation fully funds the request for facility operations as requested within Site Stewardship, except for $113,000,000 for the 

operation of the National Ignition Facility which is provided within 

the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign. 

Maintenance and Repair of Facilities.—The Committee recommends $247,591,000 within a new reporting and reprogramming 

control, $247,591,000 above the budget request. Within this 

amount, $8,000,000 is provided for the Roof Asset Management 

Program. The recommended level provides $20,000,000 above the 

request for direct maintenance, as requested within Site Stewardship, to address chronic underfunding of production facilities maintenance at Y–12, Pantex, and other sites. Funding within Maintenance and Repair of Facilities is intended to be used exclusively for 

maintenance, risk reduction, surveillance, sustainment, and corrective and routine preventative maintenance activities. The NNSA is 

directed to provide funding site splits within its budget request justification for Maintenance and Repair of Facilities in future years. 

Recapitalization.—The Committee recommends $208,173,000 

within a new reporting and reprogramming control, $208,173,000 

above the budget request. The recommended level fully funds the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
126 

NNSA’s request for recapitalization, as requested within Site Stewardship. Funding within Recapitalization is intended to be used for 

capital investments that help maintain or improve infrastructure 

at the NNSA sites, including: line-item construction Other Project 

Costs; general plant and capital asset operating and other minor 

construction projects for expansion, renovation, or replacement 

projects of existing facilities; demolition and disposition; and, purchases of major items of equipment. To the maximum extent possible, the NNSA should manage its recapitalization activities 

through the delineation of distinct projects which have a clearly defined scope, cost, and schedule basis. No funding shall be available 

until the NNSA provides the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate with an accounting of 

each project or major item of equipment to be funded that includes 

a description of that project’s total estimated cost, fiscal year 2014 

costs or multi-year cost profile if incrementally funded, and the 

scheduled completion date for each project or major item of equipment. The NNSA is directed to provide these elements at a minimum within its budget request justification for Recapitalization in 

future years. 

Production Capability Investments.—The Committee recommends 

$28,000,000 within a new reporting and reprogramming control, 

$28,000,000 above the budget request. Funding within Production 

Capability Investments is intended to be used for capital investments to enhance, replace or add new capabilities that are needed 

to directly support future stockpile production requirements including any investments needed to increase pit production capacity or 

capability. The NNSA has lost production capabilities that will be 

needed to meet future production requirements for LEPs and other 

refurbishments. Though it is not yet clear when and which capabilities will be needed, it is nevertheless essential that the NNSA 

begin making some concerted investments now to ensure that the 

infrastructure will be sufficiently responsive. In doing so, the 

NNSA must demonstrate that those investments are affordable, effectively managed, and meet all statutory reporting requirements 

for capital projects. 

The NNSA may fund new investments requested under Nuclear 

Programs, except no funding shall be available until the NNSA 

provides the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate with an accounting of each project or 

major item of equipment to be funded that includes a description 

of that project’s total estimated cost, fiscal year 2014 costs or multiyear cost profile if incrementally funded, and the scheduled completion date for each project or major item of equipment. The NNSA 

is directed to provide these elements at a minimum within its 

budget request justification for Production Capability Investments 

in future years. All production upgrade projects that are required 

to meet production schedules for a major refurbishment or LEP 

should be clearly identified as a first-user investment in the associated Selected Acquisition Report. 

Project 07–D–220, Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility 

(RLWTF), Los Alamos National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends $47,614,000 to construct the Low Level Waste Liquid Facility under the RLWTF project, the same amount as requested 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
127 

within Nuclear Programs. No funding shall be available for construction until the NNSA establishes a performance baseline for 

the project and provides the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate with an updated project 

data sheet. The Low Level Liquid Waste Facility is a like-for-like 

replacement of the capability currently provided in the existing 

RLWTF. The Committee recommends separate funding for a followon subproject to construct a Transuranic Liquid Waste Facility that 

was requested within the RLWTF project. 

Project 07–D–220–04 Transuranic Liquid Waste Facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends 

$10,605,000 for project engineering and design, the same amount 

as requested under the RLWTF project within Nuclear Programs. 

Project 06–D–141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12 National 

Security Complex.—The Committee recommends $325,835,000, the 

same amount as requested within Nuclear Programs. No funding 

shall be available for site preparation or facility construction until 

the NNSA achieves 90 percent design completion for the entire 

project. The Committee is concerned by the steep escalation in 

costs to complete design of the facility and the impacts to the overall cost of constructing the facility. The NNSA reports the cost to 

complete project engineering and design activities has grown from 

$566,192,000 in fiscal year 2013 to $1,164,000,000 in fiscal year 

2014, though some of these costs may be associated with long-lead 

procurements. The NNSA is expected to provide considerably more 

detail on its plan to construct this facility as it awards the CD–2 

milestone in the third quarter of fiscal year 2104. The NNSA 

should provide notification to the Committee if it is unable to meet 

its commitment to baseline the entire project scope in fiscal year 

2014. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Office of Secure Transportation Asset provides for the safe, 

secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials, 

and non-nuclear weapon components between military locations 

and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the United States. 

The Committee recommends $219,190,000, $121,000 above fiscal 

year 2013 and the same as the budget request. 

SITE STEWARDSHIP

Site Stewardship provides funding for several supporting activities that are better served by enterprise-wide federal management 

and includes funding for Long-Term Stewardship (formerly Environmental Projects and Operations), Nuclear Materials Integration, 

Containers, Minority Serving Institution Partnerships Program, 

Corporate Project Management, and Nuclear Criticality and Safety 

Research and Development. The Committee recommends 

$154,788,000 for Site Stewardship, $75,659,000 above fiscal year 

2013 and $1,551,219,000 below the budget request. No funding is 

provided for the Energy Modernization and Investment Program. 

The Committee does not require separate reprogramming funding 

controls to support these activities. The reduction below the request is due to continued funding of infrastructure under Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. The NNSA should not reVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
128 

quest funding for site facility operations, maintenance, or recapitalization within Site Stewardship. 

Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program.—The Committee recommends $14,531,000, the same as the budget request. 

The Committee is encouraged by new strides within the NNSA to 

foster increased diversity in the science, technology, engineering, 

and math (STEM) pipeline which serves our national security 

workforce. The Committee applauds the NNSA for specifying dedicated funding within its Weapons Activities request for the Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program (MSIPP). Funding for 

this program has been dwindling in recent years, and separately 

identifying funding will ensure the program is fully sustained and 

supported. The Committee supports these educational and research 

partnerships and encourages additional partnerships to be developed with minority serving institutions, including historically black 

colleges and universities, to ensure diversity within the next generation of scientists and researchers. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

Defense Nuclear Security is responsible for developing and implementing security programs for the protection, control, and accountability of materials and for the physical security of the nuclear security enterprise. The Committee recommends $664,981,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, $29,080,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the 

same as the budget request. Reductions from the fiscal year 2013 

level are available, in part, from savings associated with the removal of special nuclear materials from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The recommendation does not provide funding 

requested to start work on a new major security systems upgrade 

for the Device Assembly Facility at the Nevada National Security 

Site. The recommendation defers new work while the NNSA makes 

further progress on addressing the known deficiencies at Y–12 and 

Los Alamos, ensures similar mistakes will not be made during the 

Device Assembly Facility upgrade, and implements its plans for reorganization. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CYBER SECURITY

Information Technology and Cyber Security combines funding for 

Cyber Security with funding to maintain the NNSA’s unclassified 

information technology systems, previously funded under the Office 

of the Administrator. Combined funding was requested under a single program line, NNSA CIO Activities, which has been renamed 

to more clearly describe the purposes for which the funds may be 

used. The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for Information 

Technology and Cyber Security, $1,559,000 above the budget request. 

The NNSA must maintain a robust capability to combat sophisticated cyber security attacks against its computer systems. However, the budget request contained obvious funding gaps and 

banked an unspecified amount for vaguely described program efficiencies which could undermine the cyber security posture of the 

NNSA systems. Additional funding above the request is provided to 

address gaps identified at Nevada and other NNSA sites. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
129 

LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS

The Committee provides $279,597,000 for payments into the legacy University of California contractor employee defined benefit 

pension plans, $94,597,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as 

the budget request. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Use of prior-year balances.—As requested, the Committee directs the use of $47,738,000 in prior-year balances to offset the fiscal 

year 2014 needs as described above. These balances are available 

due to lower than anticipated payments for pensions in fiscal year 

2012. 

Rescission.—In title V of the bill, the Committee rescinds 

$120,000,000 in prior-year balances from the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement project. The NNSA has announced a 

five-year delay in constructing the Nuclear Facility and is unable 

to reprogram prior-year funding, so these funds are available to offset costs in fiscal year 2014. The Committee further rescinds 

$16,500,000 from Secure Transportation Asset that is available 

since the NNSA will not purchase a replacement aircraft for which 

funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2012, and $5,500,000 that 

is available from completion of the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $2,434,303,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 2,140,142,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 2,100,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥334,303,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥40,142,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation includes funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development, Nonproliferation and International Security, International Material 

Protection and Cooperation, Fissile Materials Disposition, Global 

Threat Reduction Initiative, Nuclear Incident Response, and Nuclear Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation. The Committee’s 

recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is 

$2,100,000,000, $334,303,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$40,142,000 below the budget request. After accounting for the rescission of $20,000,000 in title V of this bill, the recommendation 

for net budget authority is $354,303,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$60,142,000 below the budget request. 

Overall Funding Levels.—The recommendation approves the 

NNSA’s request to provide funding for Nuclear Incident Response 

and the Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation programs within funding for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, instead of within 

Weapons Activities as in fiscal year 2013. After accounting for this 

transfer, the recommended program level is $579,303,000 below fiscal year 2013. The Committee recommendation does not continue 

direct funding for a domestic uranium enrichment demonstration 

project, $110,000,000 below fiscal year 2013. Instead, the final installment of funding is provided via special reprogramming authorVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
130 

ity. The Committee’s recommendation takes into account substantial savings that are available as the NNSA nears completion of its 

four-year effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the 

world. In addition, the United States and the Russian Federation 

have agreed upon a new framework to permit continuation of several areas of cooperation in Russia that were previously conducted 

under the now-expired Cooperative Threat Reduction umbrella 

agreement. The Committee encourages the NNSA to clarify its 

strategy to continue its international threat reduction activities, 

which have had strong bipartisan support in Congress. In order to 

ensure continuity of these activities as the program evolves, the 

recommendation provides an additional $20,000,000 above the request for international material protection and removal activities 

within the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. 

Nuclear Forensics.—The NNSA has taken a positive step by consolidating its nuclear incident response and counterterrorism and 

counterproliferation activities within the budget request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. The responsibilities of the Office of 

Emergency Operations and the Office of Counterterrorism and 

Counterproliferation are inherently aligned with the responsibilities of the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and should 

not be considered part of the funding required to maintain the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. By integrating fiscal planning and 

execution, the NNSA can improve overall integration of what are 

clearly cooperative and complementary programs. However, the 

NNSA must still improve the way it shares responsibilities for developing a national nuclear forensics capability. The national security need to establish such a capability has been well articulated, 

but the activities within the NNSA are still not clearly distinguished. The Committee directs the NNSA to name a lead program 

office responsible for the coordination of the NNSA intra- and 

cross-agency activities that contribute to building a national nuclear forensics capability. 

Report on the Four-year Goal to Secure Vulnerable Nuclear Materials.—The Committee expects that as the four-year effort to secure 

materials worldwide concludes, the NNSA will be able to demonstrate many accomplishments, but it should also be able to provide an accurate accounting of what was unable to be accomplished 

and why. No later than May 1, 2014, the NNSA is directed to provide the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate with a full accounting of its four-year work 

that identifies what challenges remain and where emphasis needs 

to be placed in the future to achieve the NNSA’s international nuclear security goals. This report should also include an analysis of 

Russia’s willingness and ability to support and sustain the nuclear 

security investments the NNSA has made as part of the four-year 

effort. 

Performance Measures.—While progress has been made reducing 

uncosted balances and improving reporting, the Committee has 

continued concerns regarding the NNSA’s ability to evaluate and 

provide meaningful assessments of its own program performance. 

The Government Accountability Office reported in December 2011 

that the results of some programs appear overstated because the 

NNSA measured performance against different targets at the end 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
131 

of year than the ones presented in the budget request. The Committee directs the NNSA to contract with an independent entity 

with recognized expertise in evaluating program effectiveness to 

conduct a review of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation performance 

measures. The entity shall submit a report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 

with its findings and recommendations on developing more accurate and meaningful measures of program performance. The Committee is aware that the program uses and tracks additional 

metrics in some core programs which may be valuable to decision 

makers when weighing the merits of resource allocations. Further, 

the budget documents should clearly articulate and track changes 

to program goals and schedules over time in order for Congress to 

adequately weigh the implications of the budget request. For example, the original goal of the HEU conversion program was 200 reactors by 2022, but the budget request moves that goal to 2030. The 

Committee directs the NNSA to expand its metrics and explanation 

in future budget requests to provide additional background on the 

effectiveness and evolution of its programs. 

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 to respond to threats to national 

security posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and special 

nuclear materials. The Committee recommends $388,838,000 for 

Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development, 

$32,688,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. The Committee is concerned that the NNSA is not adequately planning to meet its space-based sensor production requirements. In fiscal year 2013, the NNSA was not able to meet its production requirements after allowing development to fall so far behind that it could no longer shift funding to recover its schedule 

and meet its deadlines. To prevent repeating these mistakes, the 

NNSA should consider fully funding individual sensor procurements in the initial year of funding starting with its budget request 

for fiscal year 2015. 

DOMESTIC URANIUM ENRICHMENT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND

DEMONSTRATION

The recommendation includes special reprogramming authority 

in the bill for up to $48,000,000 in fiscal year 2014 for the final installment of funding for a domestic uranium enrichment research, 

development, and demonstration project, the same amount as the 

budget request. The Department requested broad authority to fund 

this program through a transfer from any appropriation of the Department of Energy. The Committee’s recommendation provides the 

authority to continue to fund this program within the appropriation 

for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommends $128,675,000 for Nonproliferation and International Security, $26,630,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
132 

$13,000,000 below the budget request. No funding is provided to 

start a Global Security through Science Partnerships program. The 

NNSA may conduct training and similar partner engagement activities in order to address the expertise proliferation threat, but 

may not provide grants that support research and development 

projects of foreign scientists. There is no support for proceeding 

with a program that does not have clearly defined expected outcomes and that is based on the Global Initiatives for Proliferation 

Prevention program, which the Government Accountability Office 

found to have serious flaws and which may have inadvertently contributed to sustaining expertise for the Russian nuclear weapons 

program. 

INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The International Materials Protection and Cooperation (IMPC) 

program works cooperatively with partner countries to secure 

weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material in order to improve 

the physical security at facilities that possess or process significant 

quantities of materials that are of proliferation concern. The Committee recommends $369,625,000 for IMPC activities, $202,014,000 

below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD) program is responsible 

for eliminating surplus Russian weapons-grade plutonium and surplus U.S. weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium, 

including construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility 

to meet commitments under the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. The Committee recommendation 

provides $502,557,000 for fissile materials disposition activities, 

$182,829,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River, SC.— The Committee recommends $320,000,000, $115,172,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. During the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution, MOX project funding was sustained at a higher level than was requested. In addition, the Committee shifted an additional $50,000,000 from MOX operations to 

construction in fiscal year 2012. Despite this influx of additional 

funding, the NNSA has been unable to recover its schedule and is 

now facing another $2,800,000,000 in additional costs. Instead of 

fulfilling its responsibility to address these rising costs through reforming its management of the project and conducting an independent cost estimate to quantify those cost increases, the NNSA 

wrote ‘‘TBD’’ in its budget justification and removed all project 

funding from its five-year plan while it carries out a strategic 

pause. 

The recommendation provides no additional funding to continue 

studying alternatives to the MOX plant. The NNSA has not described any alternatives which have not already been exhaustively 

considered or which are likely to result in any substantial cost savings to justify this pause, particularly with no permanent nuclear 

waste repository available after the Department’s decision to unilaterally terminate Yucca Mountain. An extended study would inVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
133 

stead further drive up the overall cost of the project by delaying ongoing construction and diverting attention from what should be a 

concerted high-priority effort to improve the project’s management 

and to limit further cost escalation. 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Other Project Costs 

(OPCs).—The Committee recommends $40,000,000, the same as 

the budget request. It is not clear how the NNSA has distributed 

project construction costs between OPCs and line-item construction 

for its FMD projects. The Committee directs the NNSA to provide 

a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 60 days after enactment 

of this Act which explains how it distributes these costs for its capital line-item construction projects. 

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 $408,304,000 for GTRI activities, $91,696,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $16,183,000 below 

the budget request. While the four-year goal is set to conclude in 

December 2013 and it is unclear whether there will be limitations 

on the amount of work the NNSA can accomplish within Russia, 

the budget request proposed a drastic cut in funding for international activities that have received strong bipartisan support and 

that directly contribute to our nation’s security. The Committee 

recommendation provides $208,000,000, $20,000,000 above the 

amount requested for GTRI international material removal and 

protection activities, and contains new funding controls to ensure 

the NNSA does not divert funding for these international security 

activities to lower-priority activities. In fiscal year 2012, the NNSA 

used its internal funding flexibility to realign approximately 

$18,000,000 requested to secure and remove vulnerable international nuclear materials to increase funding for domestic material protection activities, which do not pose the same threat to national security and which are already regulated by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. While the recommendation for the international activities is increased, the amount of funding for domestic 

radiological material removal and protection is reduced, resulting 

in an overall decrease in total funding for GTRI from the budget 

request. 

HEU Reactor Conversions.—The Committee recommends 

$162,000,000, the same as the budget request. 

International Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal and 

Protection.—The Committee recommends $208,000,000 to remove 

Russian-origin, U.S.-origin, and gap materials and to remove and 

secure nuclear and radiological materials at research reactors and 

radiological buildings, $20,000,000 above the budget request. While 

it accelerates the repatriation of U.S. origin fuel, the NNSA is placing an increasing burden on the spent fuel management responsibilities of the Office of Environmental Management, which assumes the cost of storage and disposition. The NNSA should adopt 

a more appropriate cost sharing model that reflects the national seVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
134 

curity purpose of accelerating the return, storage, and disposition 

of this material. 

Domestic Radiological Material Removal and Protection.—The 

Committee recommends $38,304,000, $35,717,000 below the budget 

request. Domestic radiological materials are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and licensees are subject to U.S. law 

for providing adequate protection of these materials. While the 

NNSA may be able play a positive role in improving the level of 

protection, the program model is excessively bureaucratic and has 

large laboratory and contract overhead costs that ultimately limit 

the program’s impact. Further, there are numerous cost-effective 

strategies that could be adopted to improve effectiveness, such as 

providing more accessible training opportunities for state inspectors and licensees. The NNSA is directed to conduct a program review and, not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, to 

provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

of Representatives and the Senate on strategies to improve its programmatic model. In addition, the private sector continues to offer 

greater opportunities for radiological material disposal to states 

and licensees, and the NNSA should ensure that its efforts in no 

way compete with or limit the growth of private sector enterprise. 

NUCLEAR INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Office of Emergency Operations responds to and mitigates 

nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide and has a lead role in 

defending the nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism. The 

Committee recommendation includes funding for nuclear incidence 

response activities for the first time within the appropriation for 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, instead of within the appropriation for Weapons Activities as in fiscal year 2013. The Committee 

recommends $180,000,000 for Nuclear Incident Response, 

$1,293,000 below the budget request. 

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM AND COUNTERPROLIFERATION

The Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation provides 

the expertise, practical tools, and technically informed policy recommendations required to understand nuclear threat devices and 

advance nuclear counterterrorism and counterproliferation objectives. The Committee recommendation includes consolidated and 

dedicated funding for the Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation for the first time within the appropriation for Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation, instead of within the appropriation for 

Weapons Activities as in fiscal year 2013. The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for Nuclear Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation, $9,666,000 below the budget request. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Use of prior-year balances.—As requested, the Committee directs 

the use of $36,702,000 in prior-year balances to offset the fiscal 

year 2014 needs as described above. These balances are available 

due to lower than anticipated payments for pensions in fiscal year 

2012. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
135 

Rescission.—In title V, the Committee rescinds $20,000,000 in 

prior-year balances from Russian Surplus Materials Disposition. 

Funding is available without impact since the U.S. has still not 

reached an agreement with Russia on milestones in accordance 

with the amended Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. Once an agreement is reached, the NNSA may request additional funding. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $1,080,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 1,246,134,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,109,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +29,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥137,134,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Naval Reactors (NR) program is responsible for all aspects 

of naval nuclear propulsion from technology development through 

reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. The 

Committee recommendation provides $1,109,000,000 for Naval Reactors, $29,000,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $137,134,000 below 

the budget request. The fiscal year 2014 budget request adheres to 

the Committee’s requirements to identify separate funding for the 

OHIO-Replacement Reactor Systems Development and the S8G 

Prototype Refueling, and the Committee continues to provide funding separately for these high-priority activities. While funding for 

new activities will continue to be constrained, the Committee’s recommendation fully funds development of the OHIO-Replacement 

ballistic missile submarine and refueling of the S8G prototype, 

which is closely linked to the OHIO-Replacement. 

NR Development.—The Committee recommends $421,400,000, 

$400,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $2,000,000 above the budget 

request. Additional funding above the request is provided to support operation of the Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. 

NR Operations and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$363,198,000, $4,898,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $92,542,000 

below the budget request. The recommendation does not include 

funding requested for detailed design of a new spent fuel recapitalization project. 

Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project.—The Committee 

recommends no funding and directs a two-year delay to commence 

detailed design for this new start project. While a delay may drive 

up the overall costs by as much as $335,000,000, the Committee 

anticipates that the limited budgets expected under the Budget 

Control Act will not support the most cost-effective funding profile 

for this project while also simultaneously funding the large increases required for the development of the OHIO-Replacement 

ballistic missile submarine and the refueling of the S8G prototype 

reactor. If NR starts design in fiscal year 2014, even a delay caused 

by a Continuing Resolution or flat funding would drive up the cost 

of recapitalization by as much as $260,000,000. A two-year delay 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
136 

staggers peak funding requirements slightly and ultimately provides a more reliable planning basis. 

While detailed design and construction on the project is delayed, 

NR should continue conceptual design activities for the project 

within available funding to fully investigate any alternatives that 

might lower costs. The DOE Inspector General reported in December 2012 that NR had not adequately considered the use of a commercial off-the-shelf product prior to upgrading and modernizing 

the financial components of its Enterprise Business System. Its 

proposed new spent fuel facility would double the capacity and footprint of the existing facility, and it is still not clear why such an 

increase in capacity is needed or if there are alternatives to growing the footprint that might lower costs. In addition, NR has not 

resolved plans to sustain spent fuel examination capabilities, which 

could represent significant additional costs. As part of its continued 

consideration of alternatives, NR should also consider whether investment in existing facilities at Idaho National Laboratory, such 

as the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), 

might meet Navy needs for spent fuel processing. 

Infrastructure Planning.—NR provided a ten-year facilities plan 

in October 2012, but the plan did not provide a site-by-site description of its real property and infrastructure requirements that were 

clearly linked to strategic programmatic goals and priorities. Not 

later than 60 days after enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, NR is directed to provide the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate with a ten-year site 

plan that demonstrates an integrated corporate-level, performance 

based approach to the life-cycle management of its real property assets. While the Department of Energy has excluded NR from the 

requirements of DOE Order 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management, Naval Reactors should work with the DOE Office of Engineering and Construction Management to make sure the ten-year 

site plans developed to meet this requirement provide a comparative level of detail as other DOE ten-year site plans and conform 

to the general intent of DOE Order 430.1B. 

Use of prior-year balances.—As requested, the Committee directs 

the use of $13,983,000 in prior-year balances to offset the fiscal 

year 2014 needs as described above. These balances are available 

due to lower than anticipated payments for pensions in fiscal year 

2012. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $410,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 397,784,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 382,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 ........................................................................ ¥28,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 .................................................................... ¥15,784,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and oversight 

for Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and 

Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field offices in New Mexico, 

Nevada, and California. The Committee recommendation is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
137 

$382,000,000, $28,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $15,784,000 

below the budget request. 

The recommendation reflects the continued failure of the NNSA’s 

federal management to provide the Committee with the reports and 

information it needs to conduct its oversight mission, despite the 

clear commitment made by the NNSA to produce its required reports in time for the fiscal year 2014 budget request. The Committee expects the NNSA to improve both the timeliness of its reporting and the quality of the information provided. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $5,023,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 4,853,909,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 4,750,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥273,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ ¥103,909,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Defense Environmental Management (EM) program is responsible for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at 

sites where the nation carried out defense-related nuclear research 

and production activities that resulted in radioactive, hazardous, 

and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or some other cleanup action. The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental Cleanup is $4,750,000,000, 

$273,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $103,909,000 below the 

budget request. The recommendation does not include a federal 

contribution of $463,000,000 into the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. 

The budget request for cleanup continues to be driven by individual, site-specific negotiations between the Department and Federal and state regulators. It has become clear that many of these 

agreements, while negotiated in good faith, nevertheless relied on 

highly optimistic funding increases that would have been difficult 

in any budget environment. Under the Budget Control Act, the 

Committee anticipates that future funding available for environment cleanup will be highly constrained for the next several years. 

The Committee’s recommendation reflects that reality, providing 

$5,489,000,000 overall for the Office of Environmental Management, which includes funding for Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. This amount is a reduction of $242,651,000 

from the fiscal year 2013 level for overall EM activities. 

The Committee has carefully examined the activities that represent the highest risks to security, public health, and the environment across the cleanup sites. Funding for Hanford’s tank farm activities represents the largest increase over the fiscal year 2013 

level within Defense EM and is needed to accelerate tank waste retrieval and to ensure the Department is appropriately addressing 

indications of newly leaking tanks, as well as degraded ventilation 

and level monitoring systems that are essential for tank maintenance and safety. The Committee recognizes security and health 

risks at Oak Ridge by providing additional funding for Building 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
138 

3019 and by separately funding research on mercury remediation. 

The recommendation also includes adequate funding so that the 

Salt Waste Processing Facility can begin processing tank wastes at 

Savannah River in a more reasonable timeframe. In addition, EM 

has been notably underfunding sustainment of the nation’s only operating permanent repository for nuclear waste. A shutdown of the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant would put at risk progress at nearly 

every cleanup site and the recommendation provides additional 

funding to address maintenance which continues to be deferred. 

While the highest risks are addressed, the Committee recognizes 

the need to ensure progress towards cleanup milestones, even 

where the plan to meet those commitments is still not clear. As a 

result, the overall funding amount, while a decrease from the enacted level, is $184,575,000 above the post-sequester level for the 

Office of Environmental Management and will sustain the pace of 

cleanup across the sites. 

DOE Inspector General Recommendations on Risk-Based Funding.—In its report on management challenges for fiscal year 2013, 

the DOE Inspector General recommends that the Department 

reprioritize its cleanup activities on a complex-wide basis utilizing 

a risk-based strategy to address a remaining unfunded environmental remediation liability of approximately $250,000,000,000. In 

order to fully implement the DOE IG’s recommendations, the Department is directed to retain a respected outside group, such as 

the National Academy of Sciences, to rank and rate, on a national, 

complex-wide risk/priority basis, the Department’s outstanding environmental remediation requirements and to provide a report to 

the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 

and the Senate not later than one year following enactment of this 

Act. The report should include an explanation of the outstanding 

risks at each legacy cleanup site. 

Community and Regulatory Support.—To provide additional 

flexibility, the Committee no longer requires separate reprograming 

controls for community and regulatory support and provides funding for those activities as described below. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommends $876,612,000, 

$76,640,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $45,173,000 below the 

budget request. Within the amount for River Corridor and other 

cleanup operations, funding is included for community and regulatory support. The recommendation fully funds the request for 

cleanup activities on the River Corridor and within the Central 

Plateau, except for the request to ramp up funding at the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP). Only a year after completing a new 

baseline for a subset of the overall cleanup project, DOE is again 

behind schedule, and the project continues to face the risks of work 

stoppages and employee turnover that have contributed to these 

delays. In addition, the DOE Inspector General’s review of work on 

the Central Plateau found several issues with timely reporting of 

performance information and that the Department had not corrected those performance issues. The Committee continues to support a measured and constant pace of work at the facility that emphasizes employee safety, particularly considering that increasing 

the pace of activities there is not necessary to meet the 2016 consent milestone for facility disposition. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
139 

The U.S. Department of Justice released a press statement in 

March 2013 announcing a settlement following its investigation 

that confirmed extensive timecard fraud at Hanford from 2005 to 

2008. It is not clear what actions, if any, the Department has taken 

to ensure it can prevent similar systemic fraud and to foster increased accountability in light of this settlement. The Committee 

expects the Department to more effectively oversee its contractors 

in order to safeguard the use of taxpayer funding against fraud, 

waste, and abuse. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends 

$368,010,000, $18,859,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $3,000,000 

above the budget request. Within this amount, funding is included 

for community and regulatory support. In its report released in 

January 2013, the Idaho Leadership in Nuclear Energy Commission noted that once the Idaho cleanup efforts are completed, the 

facilities at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant (AMWTP) 

could be effectively used to assist in the characterization and cleanup being performed at other national locations. Given the current 

budget climate and the necessity to use taxpayer resources wisely, 

the Committee encourages the Department to fully explore future 

utilization of the AMWTP to meet the Department’s backlog of environmental cleanup requirements and obligations to those states 

with materials presently awaiting disposition. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommends $284,887,000, 

$2,494,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $24,789,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee recommends 

$195,000,000 for Los Alamos National Laboratory, $10,000,000 

above fiscal year 2013, to increase funding available for the removal of above-ground legacy transuranic waste which has become 

a high priority with stakeholders. The Committee is encouraged by 

the progress EM has made at Los Alamos despite the limited funding available. As it finalizes work on a framework agreement in fiscal year 2014, the Department should work with the state to establish new milestones that can reasonably be achieved in the current 

fiscal environment. The Department is further directed to work 

with the state government and local communities in a transparent 

and open dialogue to address questions and concerns regarding any 

effort to store uranium waste at the Nevada National Security Site. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$204,027,000, $4,518,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $6,000,000 

above the budget request. Within the amount for Oak Ridge Cleanup and Disposition, funding is included for community and regulatory support. The Committee is concerned by the risks associated 

with materials stored in Building 3019 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and provides an additional $6,000,000 to expedite material 

removal and to accelerate building modifications to process this 

material. 

The recommendation also provides separate funding at the requested level to accelerate development of technologies to address 

the remediation of mercury in soil and water. The cleanup of mercury presents significant environmental and technical challenges, 

and the Department has yet to develop a technical approach for its 

cleanup at Y–12. The Committee supports efforts to take early action to address this significant health and environmental risk. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
140 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP).—The Committee recommends $675,000,000, $65,000,000 below fiscal year 

2013 and $15,000,000 below the request. The reduction below the 

request is due to construction funding which cannot be executed because the Department has halted work on the Pretreatment Facility while it resolves engineering issues. The reduction also reflects 

the lack of a clear overall plan to complete the facility, the continued failure to provide timely information, and the continued management of the project without valid performance data against 

which it can track progress. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported 

that, ‘‘daunting technical challenges that will take significant effort 

and years to resolve, combined with a near tripling of project costs 

and a decade of schedule delays, raise troubling questions as to 

whether this project can be constructed and operated successfully.’’ 

The revelations regarding the extent of the outstanding engineering issues are deeply troubling, and the Department needs to make 

considerable improvements in its management of the project to ensure it will operate safely. The WTP is a critical project that must 

move forward, but the budget request provides little transparency 

into how the Department is using its funding to advance the 

project or whether it is able to track and manage ongoing work. 

The Committee’s recommendation provides new funding controls to 

improve visibility and consolidate management of those design resolution efforts. With separate funding, the Department should 

move forward to rebaseline the remaining unaffected portions of 

the project to demonstrate it can adequately track contractor performance and competently manage the project to completion. 

Low Activity Waste, Analytical Laboratory, and Balance of Facilities.—The Committee recommends $361,000,000 within a new reporting and reprogramming control. The Department was one year 

late in meeting its first semi-annual reporting requirement to the 

Committee for the WTP, and that report did not adequately describe progress compared to its current performance baseline. In 

supplemental data provided to the Committee for fiscal years 2012 

and 2013, the Department reports the Low-Activity Waste Facility 

portion of the current Total Project Cost is $2,030,598,000 with a 

construction completion date of June 2015, the estimated Analytical Laboratory portion is $717,108,000 with a construction completion date of June 2014, and the estimated Balance of Facilities portion is $1,143,932,000 with a construction completion date of January 2017. If these dates cannot be met, the Department should 

move expeditiously to quantify the delays and cost increases and 

submit a change to its baseline, since completion of these parts of 

the project are not subject to the resolution of outstanding engineering issues. 

High Level Waste and Pretreatment Facilities.—The Committee 

recommends $158,000,000 for procurement, construction, and commissioning within a new reporting and reprogramming control. 

Construction of the Pretreatment Facility has stopped pending resolution of nuclear safety-related engineering issues. Therefore, the 

recommendation does not include $15,000,000 of the $22,000,000 

requested for construction of the Pretreatment Facility and only 

provides construction funding for maintenance of the partially-built 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
141 

structure. The Department has admitted that starting construction 

too early has contributed to the cost growth in its projects, and the 

GAO found the continued use of a fast-track, design-build management approach has resulted in costly reworking and schedule 

delays on the WTP project. No funding shall be used to restart construction at the Pretreatment Facility until the Department can 

show it has achieved sufficient design maturity to prevent rework, 

as recommended by the GAO in its December 2012 report. The Department should provide a full justification for any future request 

to restart construction before it has achieved 90 percent design 

completion that shows a clear commitment to prevent further 

waste of taxpayer funding. 

Project Engineering Development, Demonstration and Testing.— The Committee recommends $156,000,000 within a new reporting 

and reprogramming control for project engineering and design, development, demonstration and testing activities related to the design of the High Level Waste and Pretreatment Facilities, as well 

as additional facilities and infrastructure that may ultimately be 

required, such as a direct feed capability. The Department must 

present a realistic strategy and timeline to resolve technical issues, 

and any changes in the overall approach to constructing the WTP 

must be backed by a business case analysis. As it completes design, 

the Department should implement the GAO’s recommendations to 

ensure the contractor performance evaluation process does not prematurely reward contractors for resolving technical issues later 

found to be unresolved and to take appropriate steps to determine 

whether any incentive payments were made erroneously and, if so, 

take actions to recover them. The Committee is also concerned 

about the quality of the engineering performed to date on the 

project and directs the Department to employ expertise from its national laboratories and independent sources to validate and assist 

the ongoing engineering activities. The Committee directs the Department to include information on the progress and work plans of 

its technical teams within its semi-annual reports on the WTP 

project. 

Savannah River Risk Management Operations.—The Committee 

recommends $396,604,000, $56,399,000 above fiscal year 2013 and 

$35,887,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, funding 

is included for community and regulatory support. The continued 

delay of the Salt Waste Processing Facility project will continue to 

limit funding available to start new cleanup activities and to ramp 

up material stabilization at Savannah River. The recommendation 

does not provide additional funding requested in fiscal year 2014 

for new start activities associated with reprocessing and risk reduction work at Building 235–F. While the Committee awaits a cost 

estimate and benefit analysis for those new start activities, the Department should move forward with operational improvements that 

will minimize the ongoing risks of Building 235–F. 

Project 05–D–405, Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF), Savannah River.—The Committee recommends $120,000,000, 

$50,071,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $28,000,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee is concerned by the lack of progress 

in developing a credible path forward for meeting commitments to 

clean up large quantities of liquid radioactive waste at Savannah 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
142 

River. The Department submitted a budget request for the project 

that provided no clear solution for resolving considerable cost increases of this project. Though it has acknowledged it will not meet 

its 2015 startup commitment to regulators, the Department has not 

explained how the limited funding proposed in the budget request 

would impact the timeline and overall costs of meeting that commitment. While the Committee is encouraged by recent efforts to 

exercise options within existing contracts that hold contractors 

more accountable and to negotiate new performance-based contracts which share risk and reduce waste, the Department is also 

accountable for developing credible plans that will not waste taxpayer dollars. The extended time it has taken the Department to 

resolve its plan is not acceptable for an ongoing major project, and 

significant delays of construction will drive up costs. The recommendation includes funding above the request to establish a 

more credible funding plan for timely completion of the SWPF. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000, $1,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and 

$10,000,000 below the budget request. Much of the legacy cleanup 

accomplished to date has required relatively straightforward techniques, but an increasing proportion of the remaining cleanup 

poses challenges that will require concentrated research and development to address. The Department needs to provide better transparency into its request for development funds as those activities 

relate to individual site cleanup efforts. The recommendation includes development funding to address mercury remediation at Y– 

12 within funding for Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the first 

time. The Department should consider this funding model for future requests for technology development. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $823,364,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 749,080,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 830,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +6,636,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ +80,920,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

Other Defense Activities provides funding for the Office of 

Health, Safety and Security; Office of Legacy Management; Idaho 

Sitewide Safeguards and Security; Defense Related Administrative 

Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. The Committee 

recommendation for Other Defense Activities (ODA) is 

$830,000,000, $6,636,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $80,920,000 

above the budget request. 

Health, Safety and Security.—The Office of Health, Safety and 

Security (HSS) develops programs and policies to protect the workers at the Department’s sites and facilities and the public; conducts 

independent oversight of performance and security; and integrates 

health, safety, and security policies across the Department, among 

other related functions. The Committee recommends $247,616,000 

for the Office of Health, Safety and Security, $3,121,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $4,301,000 below the budget request. The Committee believes it is critical to preserve the authority of HSS to 

independently assess Departmental compliance and performance 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
143 

and that HSS continues to have access to and cooperation from all 

Departmental programs. HSS is directed to continue to provide annual updates on its oversight activities. 

The Committee notes considerable improvements made regarding 

the responsiveness of DOE program offices in addressing findings 

identified by HSS during its reviews and inspections, which have 

enabled much needed action on embedded cultural problems impacting nuclear safety and the security posture at several DOE 

sites. However, the Committee remains highly concerned about the 

protection of special nuclear materials at the DOE sites and the 

ability of the Department to conduct basic security reform. The Department must be able to set and enforce security standards and 

to update those standards in a timely manner as its understanding 

of the risks and threats evolve. The latest attempt to update the 

Graded Security Posture (GSP) policy has become mired in bureaucracy, shuffled along a seemingly endless concurrence chain 

with no clear accountability or timeline for completion. The GSP is 

used by the sites as the basis for establishing protective force levels 

and security implementation plans to meet the latest threat. The 

document has not been updated in over five years, and implementation of the previous policy has been inconsistent, resulting in a 

lack of standardization across sites that is difficult for federal security managers to oversee. Without clear responsibility and accountability for who sets and enforces those security standards, the Department has by default passed on this inherently federal responsibility to its contractors. The DOE is directed to move expeditiously 

in updating its analysis with the latest known threats and approving a GSP that can be used to set and enforce adequate and consistent standards of protection at each DOE site. 

Specialized Security Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$191,500,000 for Specialized Security Activities, $4,801,000 above 

fiscal year 2013 and $4,822,000 below the budget request. 

Office of Legacy Management.—The Office of Legacy Management provides long-term stewardship following site closure. The 

Committee recommends $173,026,000 for Legacy Management, 

$3,426,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $3,957,000 below the budget 

request. 

Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommends $94,000,000 for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security, 

$650,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as requested within 

Nuclear Energy. 

Defense Related Administrative Support.—The Committee recommends $118,836,000, the same as fiscal year 2013 and the budget request, to provide administrative support for programs funded 

in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. 

Office of Hearings and Appeals.—The Office of Hearings and Appeals is responsible for all of the Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends $5,022,000, 

$880,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
144 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 

Management of the federal power marketing functions was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of 

Energy in the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 

(P.L. 95–91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 

and all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the 

Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of 

Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power 

Administration. 

All four power marketing administrations give preference in the 

sale of their power to publicly-owned and cooperatively-owned utilities. Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are financed principally under the authority of the Federal Columbia 

River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the 

Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues 

to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance 

any additional capital program requirements. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2011, power revenues from the Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations, 

which were previously classified as mandatory offsetting receipts, 

were reclassified as discretionary offsetting collections to directly 

offset annual expenses. The capital expenses of Southwestern and 

Western Area Power Administrations are appropriated annually. 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest. 

Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service 

area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the 

power from federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well 

as power from non-federal generating facilities in the region, and 

exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada and California. 

Language is included to allow expenditures from the Bonneville 

Power Administration Fund for John Day Reprogramming and 

Construction, Columbia River Basin White Sturgeon Hatchery, and 

Kelt Reconditioning and Reproductive Success Evaluation Research. Expenditure authority also is provided for construction or 

participation in the construction of a high voltage line from Bonneville’s high voltage system to the service areas of requirements customers located within Bonneville’s service area in southern Idaho, 

southern Montana, and western Wyoming; such line may extend to, 

and interconnect in, the Pacific Northwest with lines between the 

Pacific Northwest and the Pacific Southwest. 

The Committee remains concerned about implementation of the 

memorandum dated March 16, 2012, from the Secretary of Energy 

instructing the Power Marketing Administrations to modernize 

their operations. In particular, communication with the appropriate 

committees of Congress regarding statutory authority and the potential impact on electricity prices remains limited at best. For fiscal year 2014, no expenditure authority is requested and no exVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
145 

penditure authority is provided to comply with this memorandum. 

The Committee directs each Power Marketing Administration to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate any direction provided by the Secretary with an analysis of the costs of complying with such direction, including additional costs to electricity consumers. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... – – – 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... – – – 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) markets hydroelectric power produced at 22 Army Corps of Engineers Projects in 

11 states in the southeast. Southeastern does not own or operate 

any transmission facilities, so it contracts to ‘‘wheel’’ its power 

using the existing transmission facilities of area utilities. 

The total program level for SEPA in fiscal year 2014 is 

$101,034,000, with $93,284,000 for purchase power and wheeling 

and $7,750,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 

wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $78,081,000, and annual expenses will be offset by collections of $7,750,000 provided in 

this Act. Additionally, SEPA has identified $15,203,000 in alternative financing for purchase power and wheeling. The net appropriation, therefore, is $0 in the recommendation and the budget request. 

The Committee remains concerned about implementation of the 

memorandum dated March 16, 2012, from the Secretary of Energy 

instructing the Power Marketing Administrations to modernize 

their operations. In particular, communication with the appropriate 

committees of Congress regarding statutory authority and the potential impact on electricity prices remains limited at best. For fiscal year 2014, no funding is requested and no funding is provided 

to comply with this memorandum. The Committee directs each 

Power Marketing Administration to report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate any 

direction provided by the Secretary with an analysis of the costs of 

complying with such direction, including additional costs to electricity consumers. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $12,702,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 11,892,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 11,892,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥810,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) markets hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects in the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
146 

six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. SWPA operates and maintains 1,380 miles of 

transmission lines, along with supporting substations and communications sites. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is a net appropriation of $11,892,000, the same as the 

budget request. The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal 

year 2014 is $101,764,000, including $13,598,000 for operation and 

maintenance expenses, $52,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $29,939,000 for program direction, and $6,227,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total $75,564,000, including $42,000,000 

for purchase power and wheeling, $28,267,000 for program direction, and $5,297,000 for operations and maintenance. Southwestern 

estimates it will secure alternative financing from customers in the 

amount of $14,308,000. 

The Committee remains concerned about implementation of the 

memorandum dated March 16, 2012, from the Secretary of Energy 

instructing the Power Marketing Administrations to modernize 

their operations. In particular, communication with the appropriate 

committees of Congress regarding statutory authority and the potential impact on electricity prices remains limited at best. For fiscal year 2014, no funding is requested and no funding is provided 

to comply with this memorandum. The Committee directs each 

Power Marketing Administration to report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate any 

direction provided by the Secretary with an analysis of the costs of 

complying with such direction, including additional costs to electricity consumers. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $91,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 95,930,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 95,930,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +4,030,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of 

transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long. Western provides electricity to 15 western states over a service area of 1.3 million square 

miles. 

The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is a net appropriation of $95,930,000, the same as the 

budget request. The total program level for Western in fiscal year 

2014 is recommended at $830,098,000, which includes $122,437,000 

for construction and rehabilitation, $82,843,000 for system operation and maintenance, $407,109,000 for purchase power and 

wheeling, and $217,709,000 for program direction. No funding is 

provided, or requested, for the Utah Mitigation and Conservation 

Fund, consistent with Public Law 108–137 which ended Western’s 

contributions in fiscal year 2013. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
147 

Offsetting collections include $434,727,000 for purchase power 

and wheeling and annual expenses, and the use of $6,092,000 of 

offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381). Western Area estimates it will secure alternative financing from customers in the amount of $293,349,000. 

The budget request proposed legislative language to allow the recovery of purchase power and wheeling expenses to include the cost 

of voluntary participation in state greenhouse gas programs. The 

Committee agrees with Western that the Clean Air Act does not require Western to participate in California’s cap and trade program 

for greenhouse gases. Further, the Committee strongly believes 

that Western and the Department should have sought agreement 

from the appropriate committees of the Congress prior to committing Western to participating voluntarily in this state program. A 

new activity of this magnitude, especially a voluntary activity that 

could have a significant cost to Western’s customers and federal 

taxpayers, should not have been undertaken without specific approval from the Congress. Without a clear understanding of the 

costs and other implications of voluntary participation in California’s program generally and the legislative language specifically, 

the Committee must reject the budget proposal. Instead, Western 

and the Department are directed to report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not 

later than 60 days after enactment of this Act on the costs and 

other implications of alternative methods of voluntary participation 

in the state program, as well as the alternative of not participating 

in the state program. 

The Committee remains concerned about implementation of the 

memorandum dated March 16, 2012, from the Secretary of Energy 

instructing the Power Marketing Administrations to modernize 

their operations. In particular, communication with the appropriate 

committees of Congress regarding statutory authority and the potential impact on electricity prices remains limited at best. For fiscal year 2014, no expenditure authority is requested and no expenditure authority is provided to comply with this memorandum. 

The Committee notes that the Joint Outreach Team submitted to 

the Secretary final recommendations for the Western Area Power 

Administration on January 29, 2013. The Secretary, in a memorandum dated March 1, 2013, directed Western to prepare an implementation plan to help prioritize tasks and establish a schedule 

for completion. The Committee directs Western to provide this information to the Committee not later than three days after providing it to the Secretary. The information to the Committee should 

include an analysis of the costs of implementing each recommendation, including additional costs to electricity consumers. 

The Committee is concerned that Western has not been fully responsive in its efforts to work with its customers in implementing 

its Access to Capital (A2C) initiative. The Committee believes that 

Western has relied too much on a ‘‘top down’’ approach and could 

be missing innovative proposals from its customer base. Accordingly, the Committee hopes to see improvement in Western’s approach and will continue to monitor further developments to ensure 

that customers’ concerns are addressed. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
148 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $220,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 420,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 420,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +200,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

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 budget request includes a proposal for permanent authority 

to accept contributed funds for use in fulfilling duties associated 

with the Falcon and Amistad Dams. This authority would be equivalent to the authority used throughout the Western Area Power 

Administration to secure alternative financing. The Committee 

amends this proposal to limit authority to up to $865,000 in fiscal 

year 2014 only. 

The Committee recommendation is a net appropriation of 

$420,000, the same as the budget request. The total program level 

is $6,196,000, with $4,910,671 of offsetting collections applied toward annual expenses and $865,000 of alternative financing. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $304,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 304,600,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 304,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $¥304,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... ¥304,600,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥304,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $304,600,000, the same as fiscal year 

2013 and the budget request. Revenues for FERC are established 

at a rate equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0. 

The Committee is aware that concerns remain about the degree 

of consideration given by FERC to the rights and concerns of private property owners during the process for developing, reviewing, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
149 

and approving shoreline management plans. The Committee reiterates its support for the expeditious development and implementation of innovative and mutually agreeable solutions to resolve conflicts among project purposes and private property at specific locations. The Committee also expects FERC to complete as soon as 

possible its review of the overall shoreline management plan process and report to Congress, as directed in fiscal year 2012. 

Natural Gas Export Project Consideration.—The Committee is 

concerned with the pace of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s consideration of natural gas export projects, including the 

use of ‘‘tolling orders’’ to extend statutory deadlines. The Committee supports a clearly communicated, expedited process to make 

an appropriate determination on each of the pending applications 

and directs the Commission to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, not later 

than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, its plan 

to finish consideration of all applications filed with the Commission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
150 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 046 81287A.036
151 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 046 81287A.037
152 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 01 81287A.038
153 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 049 81287A.039
154 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 02 81287A.040
155 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 051 81287A.041
156 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 052 81287A.042
157 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 053 81287A.043
158 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 054 81287A.044
159 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 055 81287A.045
160 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 056 81287A.046
161 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 057 81287A.047
162 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 058 81287A.048
163 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 059 81287A.049
164 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 060 81287A.050
165 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 061 81287A.051
166 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 062 81287A.052
167 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 063 81287A.053
168 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 064 81287A.054
169 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 065 81287A.055
170 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 066 81287A.056
171 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 067 81287A.057
172 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 068 81287A.058
173 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 069 81287A.059
174 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 070 81287A.060
175 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 071 81287A.061
176 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 072 81287A.062
177 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 073 81287A.063
178 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 074 81287A.064
179 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this title to initiate requests for proposals, other solicitations or arrangements for new programs or activities that have not 

yet been approved and funded by the Congress; requires notification or a report for certain funding actions; prohibits funds to be 

used for certain multi-year ‘‘Energy Programs’’ activities without 

notification; and prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds 

provided in this title through a reprogramming of funds except in 

certain circumstances. 

The bill continues a provision that permits the transfer and 

merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

The bill continues a provision that authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 504 of the 

National Security Act of 1947. 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds in 

this title for capital construction of high hazard nuclear facilities, 

unless certain independent oversight is conducted. 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this title to approve critical decision-2 or critical decision3 for certain construction projects, unless a separate independent 

cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision. 

The bill includes a provision amending the frequency with which 

a certain review is required. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting the implementation of 

section 407 of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The bill includes a provision standardizing the availability of 

funds for certain research and development activities. 

The bill includes a provision prohibiting the Office of Science 

from entering into multi-year funding agreements with a value of 

less than $1,500,000. 

The bill includes a provision requiring a plan for tritium and enriched uranium. 

The bill includes a provision requiring analysis of alternatives for 

warhead life extension programs. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $68,263,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 64,618,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 70,317,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +2,054,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ +5,699,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965 by the Appalachian 

Regional Development Act (Public Law 89–4). It comprises the governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a federal co-chair appointed by the President. Each year, the ARC provides funding for 

several hundred projects in the Appalachian Region in areas such 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
180 

as business development, education and job training, telecommunications, infrastructure, community development, housing, and 

transportation. The Committee recommendation for the ARC is $70,317,000, 

$2,054,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $5,699,000 above the budget 

request. 

The ARC targets 50 percent of its funds to distressed counties or 

distressed areas in the Appalachian region. The Committee continues to believe this should be the primary focus of the ARC. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $29,130,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 29,915,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 29,915,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +785,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was created by the fiscal year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. 

The Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 

provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 

regarding public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear facilities. The DNFSB is responsible for reviewing 

and evaluating the content and implementation of the standards 

relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department of Energy’s defense nuclear facilities. 

The Committee expects the DNFSB to continue to play a significant role in scrutinizing the Department’s safety and security activities, including the reform initiatives underway in the Department that may impact projects under its jurisdiction. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2014 is 

$29,915,000, $785,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the 

budget request. 

The recommendation includes $850,000 to procure inspector general services from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as directed 

in fiscal year 2012 and 2013. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

can provide effective and appropriate inspector general services for 

the Board and the Board has provided no alternative agencies or 

advisory bodies which would meet the full intent of the Committee’s direction. The Board should move expeditiously in standing up 

these services, which are to be provided permanently, subject to future appropriations. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $11,677,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 11,319,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 11,319,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥358,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state partnership established by the Delta Regional Authority Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–554) that serves a 252-county/parish area in an eightVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
181 

state region near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each participating state, the DRA 

is designed to remedy severe and chronic economic distress by 

stimulating economic development and fostering partnerships that 

will have a positive impact on the region’s economy. The DRA 

seeks to help local communities leverage other federal and state 

programs, which are focused on basic infrastructure development, 

transportation improvements, business development, and job training services. Under federal law, at least 75 percent of appropriated 

funds must be invested in distressed counties and parishes, with 

50 percent of the funds provided for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. 

For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends $11,319,000, 

$358,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $10,679,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 7,396,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 7,396,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥3,283,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Denali Commission is a regional development agency established by the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–277) 

to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, health services, and economic support throughout Alaska. To ensure that local communities have a stake in Commission-funded projects, local cost-share 

requirements for construction and equipment have been established for both distressed and non-distressed communities. 

For the cost of the Commission’s operations in fiscal year 2014, 

the Committee recommends $7,396,000, $3,283,000 below fiscal 

year 2013 and the same as the budget request. 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $1,497,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 1,355,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,355,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥142,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–234) authorized the establishment of the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) as a federal-state partnership intended 

to address the economic development needs of distressed portions 

of the four-state region of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 

New York. The Committee has continued legislative language addressing the Commission’s administrative expenses. 

The Committee recommends $1,355,000 to support the Commission’s activities in fiscal year 2014, $142,000 below fiscal year 2013 

and the same as the budget request. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
182 

SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $250,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... – – – 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 250,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ +250,000 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–234) authorized the establishment of the Southeast Crescent 

Regional Commission as a federal-state partnership intended to address the economic development needs of distressed portions of the 

seven-state region in the southeastern United States not already 

served by a regional development agency. 

The Committee recommends $250,000 for operations of the commission in fiscal year 2014, the same as fiscal year 2013 and 

$250,000 above the budget request. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $1,027,240,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 1,043,937,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,043,937,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +16,697,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $¥899,726,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... ¥920,721,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥920,721,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥20,995,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $127,514,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 123,216,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 123,216,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥4,298,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2014 is 

$1,043,937,000, $16,697,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as 

the budget request. The total amount of budget authority is offset 

by estimated revenues of $920,721,000, $20,995,000 more than fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. Including revenues, the net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

is $123,216,000. 

Not more than $9,500,000 is included for salaries, travel, and 

other support costs for the Office of the Commission. These salaries 

and expenses shall include only salaries and benefits costs and 

travel costs, and are not to include general and administrative and 

infrastructure costs. The Committee directs that these funds are to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
183 

be jointly managed by the Commissioners, and the bill requires 

that the use and expenditure of these salaries and expenses shall 

only be by a majority vote of the Commission. The NRC shall include a breakout and explanation of the Commission salaries and 

expenses in its annual budget requests. If the Commission wishes 

to change the composition of the funds requested for its salaries 

and expenses in future years, it must do so in an annual budget 

request or through a reprogramming. 

The Committee notes that the NRC continues its administrative 

shutdown of the Yucca Mountain license application, as well as its 

willful misrepresentation of congressional intent. The recommendation continues language prohibiting the Chairman of the NRC from 

terminating any program, project, or activity without the approval 

of a majority of Commissioners. In addition, the recommendation 

requires the NRC to notify and report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the 

use of emergency functions. The recommendation directs the use of 

prior-year funds to complete the Yucca Mountain license application. The Committee does not share the Administration’s perspective that once Nuclear Waste Fund resources are depleted, the 

NRC’s responsibility to complete the Yucca Mountain license application is obviated. The NRC is directed to report to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, 

not later than January 1, 2014, on its plan to complete the license 

application with existing resources and proposals to make available 

additional funds as necessary. 

The Committee recommendation supports the following activities: 

Nuclear Reactor Safety ...................................................................... $812,400,000 

Operating Reactors ..................................................................... 571,900,000 

New Reactors ............................................................................... 240,500,000 

Nuclear Materials & Waste Safety ................................................... 231,500,000 

Fuel Facilities .............................................................................. 60,200,000 

Nuclear Materials Users ............................................................. 86,900,000 

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation .................................... 45,400,000 

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste ................................... 39,000,000 

Integrated University Program.—From within available funds, 

the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to provide financial support for the university education programs relevant to the NRC 

mission, as the Commission continues to be reliant on a pipeline 

of highly trained nuclear engineers and scientists and benefits substantially from this university program. Not less than $5,000,000 

of this amount is to be used for grants to support research projects 

that do not align with programmatic missions, but are critical to 

maintaining the discipline of nuclear science and engineering. 

Reporting Requirements.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide semi-annual reports on the status of its 

licensing and other regulatory activities. 

Public input.—The Second Circuit’s January 7, 2013 decision in 

Brodsky v NRC affirmed the NRC’s authority to issue exemptions 

from regulations promulgated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act 

(AEA) and the NRC’s conclusion that the hearing rights under the 

AEA or Administrative Procedures Act do not attach to a NRC proceeding granting an exemption. Because the Court did not have 

sufficient information on which to determine whether the NRC had 

properly exercised its discretion when it did not provide an opporVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
184 

tunity for public input on the exemption request at issue, the NRC 

was directed to supplement the administrative record. The NRC is 

directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate (1) a summary of public 

input received in response to its Federal Register notice (78 Fed. 

Reg. 20144; April 3, 2013) on the Draft Environmental Assessment 

and FONSI referenced therein; and (2) any modifications made to 

the referenced exemption in light of the public comments. The NRC 

is also directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate whether existing regulation(s) bear on the agency’s need to prepare an environmental 

review for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 

or Part 52. 

Emergency Preparedness.—The Committee directs the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission to work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to monitor and, as necessary, provide updates regarding work related to radiological emergency response. 

The NRC staff shall maintain current on federal standards, guidance, and studies (e.g. SOARCA) to validate that the current emergency planning requirements are adequate and scalable to respond 

to extreme events. 

The NRC shall coordinate with FEMA and other relevant executive branch agencies and report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 

180 days after enactment of this Act on its recommendations for 

additional actions that should be included within National Response Framework to improve national capability to respond in the 

aftermath of a significant natural event that impacts operating nuclear power plants. The NRC shall coordinate with FEMA to ensure that any changes to the provisions provided in the current onsite radiological emergency response plans are consistent with the 

all-hazards plans for the same jurisdictions. Further, the NRC 

shall work with FEMA, state and local officials to evaluate the efficacy of various communication platforms for public awareness of 

emergency preparedness. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $10,860,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 11,105,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 11,105,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +245,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $¥9,774,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... ¥9,994,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥9,994,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... ¥220,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
185 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $1,086,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 1,111,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,111,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... +25,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Committee recommends $11,105,000, $245,000 above fiscal 

year 2013 and the same as the budget request. Given the formula 

for fee recovery, the revenue estimate is $9,994,000, resulting in a 

net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector 

General of $1,111,000. 

The Committee has included $850,000 within the appropriation 

for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for the Board to 

procure Inspector General services from the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Inspector General. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $3,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 3,400,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 3,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) was established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee 

expects the NWTRB to be actively engaged with the Department, 

the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on issues involving nuclear waste 

disposal. The NWTRB should also provide support to the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s efforts to archive and preserve all Yucca Mountain-related documents and 

physical materials of scientific value. 

The Committee recommends $3,400,000 for the NWTRB, the 

same as fiscal year 2013 and the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2013 * ......................................................................... $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ....................................................................... 1,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2013 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2014 ................................................................ – – – 

* FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB. 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects was established as an independent agency 

in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant to the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–324). 

The Federal Coordinator is responsible for coordinating local, federal, and international activities for a natural gas transportation 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
186 

project, including facilitating the permitting process, as well as 

joint surveillance and monitoring of construction with the State of 

Alaska. A North American natural gas pipeline would be an important step towards energy independence for the United States, as it 

could deliver significant domestic natural gas supply to the lower 

48 states. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 to 

support the activities of this office in fiscal year 2014, the same as 

fiscal year 2013 and the budget request. 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Established in 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was 

created as a Government-owned corporation for the coordinated development of water and power programs among seven states in the 

Tennessee Valley. The TVA finances its program primarily from 

proceeds available from current power operations and borrowings 

against future power revenues. 

NNSA Tritium Program.—The Committee directs the Tennessee 

Valley Authority to bill the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) on a quarterly basis for the work supporting the 

NNSA’s tritium program. This report shall include funding paid by 

the NNSA to TVA, and any other programmatic or financial assistance, in support of this program. This requirement shall apply in 

future fiscal years unless contradicted by the Committee. 

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. This requirement shall 

apply in future fiscal years unless contradicted by the Committee. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

The bill includes a provision regarding the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission that limits the termination of any program, project, or 

activity except in certain circumstances. 

The bill includes a provision requiring reporting on the use of 

emergency authority. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS AND RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this Act to, in any way, directly or indirectly influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before the Congress, other than to communicate to Members of 

Congress as described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States 

Code. 

The bill includes a provision regarding enforcement of appropriations levels. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
187 

The bill continues a provision limiting the use of funds to enter 

into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative 

agreement with; make a grant to; or provide a loan or loan guarantee to corporations convicted of a felony criminal violation of 

Federal law within the preceding 24 months. The Department shall 

provide an annual report to the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate, due not later than 

30 days after the end of each fiscal year, detailing its implementation of this provision, including a list of affected corporations and 

a justification for any cases in which the Department has determined that the limitation should not apply. 

The bill continues a provision limiting the use of funds to enter 

into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative 

agreement with; make a grant to; or provide a loan or loan guarantee to corporations with certain unpaid Federal tax liabilities. 

The Department shall provide an annual report to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, 

due not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, detailing its implementation of this provision, including a list of affected 

corporations and a justification for any cases in which the Department has determined that the limitation should not apply. 

The bill includes a modified provision consolidating the transfer 

authorities into and out of accounts funded by this Act. No additional transfer authority is implied or conveyed by this provision. 

For the purposes of this provision, the term ‘‘transfer’’ shall mean 

the shifting of all or part of the budget authority in one account 

to another. In addition to transfers provided in this Act or other 

appropriation Acts, and existing authorities, such as the Economy 

Act (31 U.S.C. 1535), by which one part of the United States Government may provide goods or services to another part, the Act allows transfers using Section 4705 of the Atomic Energy Defense 

Act (50 U.S.C. 2745) and 15 U.S.C. 638 regarding SBIR/STTR. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in contravention 

of Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental justice. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting any new hire by any 

Federal agency funded in this Act that is not verified through the 

E-Verify Program. 

The bill contains a provision regarding rescissions of prior-year 

appropriations. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in this Act from 

being used to close the Yucca Mountain license application process 

or for actions that would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the future. 

The bill includes a provision directing the Bureau of Reclamation 

and the Army Corps of Engineers, working with the Government 

Accountability Office, to provide a comprehensive report that provides updated performance metrics that are measurable, repeatable, and directly linked to requests for funding. Performance 

measures in future budget justifications should clearly demonstrate 

the extent to which prior year investments in programs, projects, 

and activities can be tied to progress toward achieving priority 

goals and include estimates for how proposed investments will contribute to additional progress. In particular, performance measures 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
188 

should measure outcome (results and impact), output (volume), and 

efficiency. 

The bill includes a provision regarding the sense of Congress that 

Congress should not pass any legislation authorizing spending cuts 

that would increase poverty in the United States. The bill includes a provision setting at $0 the amount that the 

proposed new budget authority in this recommendation exceeds the 

allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations under section 

302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

Under section 106, ‘‘General Provisions, Corps of Engineers— 

Civil’’, funds under the heading ‘‘Operation and Maintenance’’ may 

be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps projects. The amount that may be transferred is specified in the allocation table under the heading ‘‘Operation and Maintenance’’. 

TITLE II—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Under ‘‘Water and Related Resources’’, $28,000 is available for 

transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $8,401,000 

is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary may be advanced 

to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of transfers may be 

increased or decreased within the overall appropriation under the 

heading. 

Under ‘‘California Bay Delta Restoration’’, such sums as may be 

necessary to carry out authorized purposes may be transferred to 

appropriate accounts of other participating federal agencies. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Under ‘‘Nuclear Energy’’, such sums as may be necessary to support the Yucca Mountain high-level waste geological repository liVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
189 

cense application may be transferred to ‘‘Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Salaries and Expenses’’. 

Under section 302, ‘‘General Provisions—Department of Energy’’, 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities 

in this Act may be transferred to appropriation accounts for such 

activities established pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred 

may be merged with funds in the applicable established accounts 

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time 

period as originally enacted. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Under section 505, transfer authorities are consolidated for the 

purposes of title III of the Act. 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor the report contains any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which 

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, stating that funds can be used for the construction of river 

and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects authorized by 

law, and for detailed studies and plans and specifications of such 

projects. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River and Tributaries, permitting the use of funds from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 

and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 

related projects authorized by law; providing security for infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including administrative 

buildings and laboratories; maintaining authorized harbor channels 

provided by a State, municipality, or other public agency that serve 

essential navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and 

charting northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
190 

clearing and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to 

navigation. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds from 

a special account for resource protection, research, interpretation, 

and maintenance activities at outdoor recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of 

dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been collected. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the total 

amount of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or activities funded under the Operation and Maintenance heading shall 

not be allocated to a field operating activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and permitting the use of these funds for 

emergency activities as determined by the Chief of Engineers to be 

necessary and appropriate. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 

Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United 

States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, providing that funds are available for official reception and 

representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this Act for 

the activities funded in Expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural disaster. 

Language has been included to provide for funding for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase and hire of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the funds may be 

available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of 

funds except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the execution of any contract 

for a program, project or activity which commits funds in excess of 

the amount appropriated (to include funds reprogrammed under 

section 101) that remain unobligated. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 103, prohibiting the award of a continuing contract for any project funded out of the Inland Waterway Trust 

Fund. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
191 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 104, regarding submission of the Chief of Engineers Report to congressional committees. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 105, requiring the Secretary of the Army to implement measures to prevent aquatic nuisance species from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic connection 

between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 106, providing for transfer authority to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service for mitigation for lost fisheries. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 107, prohibiting certain actions related to the 

definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 108, amending the authorization limit for 

Olmsted Locks and Dam. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 109, amending the authorization limit for the 

Miami Harbor, Florida project. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 110, amending the authorization limit for the 

Little Calumet, Indiana project. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 111, waiving section 902 of the Water Resources 

Development Act during fiscal year 2014 for any project receiving 

funds provided. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 112, prohibiting certain actions related to the 

definition of fill material or discharge of fill material under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 113, allowing the possession of firearms at 

water resources development projects under certain circumstances. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing that funds are available 

for fulfilling federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for 

grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local governments and Indian tribes. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, allowing fund transfers within the 

overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing that 

such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River 

Dam Fund; and, transfers may be increased or decreased within 

the overall appropriation. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing for funds to be derived 

from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established 

by 16 U.S.C. 6806; that funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 by 

non-federal entities shall be available for expenditure; and that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
192 

funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a are to be credited to the 

Water and Related Resources account and available for expenditure. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing that funds may be used for 

high priority projects carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, 

as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of 

Public Law 102–575. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, providing that none of the 

funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or lease 

of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed 

to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by consent or decree. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta Restoration, permitting the transfer of funds to 

appropriate accounts of other participating federal agencies to 

carry out authorized programs; allowing funds made available 

under this heading to be used for the federal share of the costs of 

the CALFED Program management; and requiring that CALFED 

implementation be carried out with clear performance measures 

demonstrating concurrent progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the program. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and Administration, providing that funds are to be derived from 

the Reclamation Fund and prohibiting the use of any other appropriation in the Act for activities budgeted as policy and administration expenses. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase of motor vehicles 

for replacement. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 201, providing that none of the funds 

may be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 202, regarding the San Luis Unit and 

the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 203, regarding pipeline reliability 

standards. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Language has been included under Renewable Energy, Energy 

Reliability, and Efficiency for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Renewable Energy, Energy 

Reliability, and Efficiency for expenses necessary for electricity delivery and energy reliability activities. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
193 

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 Nuclear Energy permitting 

the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund only to support the Yucca 

Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Energy providing 

funding to affected units of local government, as defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Energy providing for 

transfers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission salaries and expenses account to support the Yucca Mountain license application. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development for the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 

and equitable interest in any real property or any facility or for 

plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for conducting inquires, technological investigations, and research concerning the 

extraction, processing, use and disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social and environmental cost under 30 U.S.C. 3, 

1602 and 1603. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development, providing for the vesting of fee title or other real 

property interests acquired under project in any entity, including 

the United States. 

Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances. 

Language has been included under 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 Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section 

1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in an amount equal to the 

appropriated amount as offsetting collections to this account and 

making fees collected under section 1702(h) in excess of the appropriated amount unavailable for expenditure until appropriated. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program prohibiting the subordination of certain interests. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
194 

language for this account reflects the total estimated program 

funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities for the 

purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of an ambulance. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment and other incidental expenses. 

Language has been included under Naval Reactors for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 

facilities, and facility expansion. 

Language has been included under the Office of the Administrator providing funding for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Language has been included under Defense Environmental 

Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Other Defense Activities for 

the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment. 

Language has been included under Bonneville Power Administration Fund providing funding for official reception and representation expenses; approving funds for certain programs; and precluding any new direct loan obligations. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 16 

U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power and related 

services shall be credited to the account as discretionary offsetting 

collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose 

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing funds for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 16 

U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power and related 

services shall be credited to the account as discretionary offsetting 

collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern Power 

Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose 

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
195 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration 

providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 16 U.S.C. 825s, 

and 43 U.S.C. 392a, amounts collected from the sale of power and 

related services shall be credited to the account as discretionary 

offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the 

sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area 

Power Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase 

power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 

offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the 

sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that, notwithstanding 68 

Stat. 255 and 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected from the sale of 

power and related services shall be credited to the account as discretionary offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the 

hydroelectric facilities of those dams and associated Western Area 

Power Administration activities. 

Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that the Western Area 

Power Administration may accept a limited amount of contributions from the United States power customers of the Falcon and 

Amistad Dams for use by the Commissioner of the United States 

Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission for 

operating and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities. 

Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to permit 

the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 301, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 

or initiate requests for proposals or other solicitations or arrangements for programs that have not yet been fully funded by the 

Congress; requiring notification and reporting requirements for certain funding awards; limiting the use of multi-year funding mechanisms; and providing that none of the funds may be available for 

obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds except 

in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 302, providing that unexpended balances of 

prior appropriations may be transferred and merged with new appropriation accounts established in this Act. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 303, providing that funds for intelligence 

activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of 

section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 

2014 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2014. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 304, prohibiting the use of funds for capital 

construction of high hazard nuclear facilities unless certain independent oversight is conducted. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
196 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 305, prohibiting the use of funds to approve 

critical decision-2 or critical decision-3 for certain construction 

projects, unless a separate independent cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 306, amending reporting requirements established in Public Law 110–5. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 307, prohibiting funds to pay the salaries 

of employees to carry out section 407 of division A of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 308, providing up to 4.5 percent of funds 

made available for certain facilities to be used for laboratory directed research and development. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 309, requiring the Office of Science to fund 

up-front funding arrangements for less than $1,500,000. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 310, requiring a plan for tritium and enriched uranium. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 311, regarding cost analysis requirements 

for certain nuclear weapons activities. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Language has been included under Appalachian Regional Commission providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and allowing 

the expenditure of funds as authorized by subtitle IV of title 40, 

United States Code, without regard to section 14704. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board providing for the procurement of Inspector General 

services. 

Language has been included under Delta Regional Authority allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by the Delta Regional Authority Act without regard to section 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 

382M and 382N of said Act. 

Language has been included under Denali Commission allowing 

the expenditure of funds notwithstanding section 306(g) of the 

Denali Commission Act of 1998, and providing for cost-share requirements for Commission-funded construction projects in distressed and non-distressed communities, as defined by section 307 

of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C, Title III, Public 

Law 105–277), and an amount not to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities. 

Language has been included under Northern Border Regional 

Commission for expenditure as authorized by subtitle V of title 40, 

Untied States Code, without regard to section 15751(b). 

Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for salaries and other 

support costs for the Office of the Commission, to be controlled by 

majority vote of the Commission. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
197 

Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for official representation 

expenses and permits the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and expenses to 

reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. Funding is provided to support university research and development, and for a 

Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program. 

Language has been included under Office of Inspector General 

that provides for the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and expenses, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, to reduce 

the appropriation as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under 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 amount specified unavailable for obligation until appropriated. 

Language has been included under Independent Agencies, General Provisions, section 401, prohibiting the termination of any program, project, or activity at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

without a majority vote of the Commissioners approving such action. 

Language has been included under Independent Agencies, General Provisions, section 402, improving transparency for the use of 

emergency powers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

501, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending 

before the Congress. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

502, prohibiting the reduction of funding as proposed in a presidential budget request without such change enacted in an appropriations Act, or made pursuant to the regular reprogramming and 

transfer guidelines. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

503, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement with a corporation which has been convicted of a felony, except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

504, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement with a corporation which has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 

assessed, except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

505, prohibiting the transfer of funds except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in this or any other appropriations Act, or certain other authorities, and requiring a report. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

506, prohibiting funds in contravention of Executive Order No. 

12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental justice. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

507, prohibiting any new hire by any Federal agency funded in this 

Act that is not verified through the E-Verify Program. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
198 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

508, rescinding unobligated funds not designated as an emergency 

requirement in the ‘‘Construction, General’’, ‘‘Food Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee’’, ‘‘General Investigations’’, ‘‘Construction’’, ‘‘Investigations’’, and ‘‘Mississippi River and 

Tributaries’’ headings under the Corps of Engineers and the ‘‘Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’’, ‘‘Weapons Activities’’, and 

‘‘Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation’’ headings under the Department of Energy. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

509, prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to close the 

Yucca Mountain license application process, or for actions that 

would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the future. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

510, regarding performance metrics for the Bureau of Reclamation 

and the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 512, setting at $0 the amount that the proposed new budget authority exceeds the allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974. 

PROGRAM DUPLICATION

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DIRECTED RULE MAKING

The bill does not direct any rule making. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, 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 italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1988 

(Public Law 100–676) 

AN ACT To provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for 

other purposes. 

SEC. 3. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION.—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the following projects for water resources 

development and conservation and other purposes are authorized 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
199 

to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with 

the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the respective reports designated in this subsection: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) LOWER OHIO RIVER, ILLINOIS AND KENTUCKY.—The project 

for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks and Dams 52 and 53, 

Illinois and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 

August 20, 1986, at a total cost of ø$775,000,000¿ 

$2,918,000,000, with a first Federal cost of ø$775,000,000¿ 

$2,918,000,000, and with the costs of construction of the 

project to be paid one-half from amounts appropriated from the 

general fund of the Treasury and one-half from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007 

(Public Law 110–114) 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES 

PROJECTS 

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following 

projects for water resources development and conservation and 

other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 

substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports designated in this section: 

(1) HAINES, ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Haines, 

Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 

2004, at a total cost of $14,040,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $11,232,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$2,808,000. 

(2) PORT LIONS, ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Port 

Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 14, 

2006, at a total cost of $9,530,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $7,624,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$1,906,000. 

(3) SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, ARIZONA.— 

The project for environmental restoration, Santa Cruz River, 

Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,400,000. 

(4) TANQUE VERDE CREEK, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, 

Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,906,000, with an estimated 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
200 

Federal cost of $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $2,070,000. 

(5) SALT RIVER (RIO SALADO OESTE), MARICOPA COUNTY, ARI- ZONA.—The project for environmental restoration, Salt River 

(Rio Salado Oeste), Maricopa County, Arizona: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of 

$166,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000. 

(6) SALT RIVER (VA SHLY’AY AKIMEL), MARICOPA COUNTY, ARI- ZONA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Salt River (Va Shly’ay Akimel), Arizona: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost 

of $162,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$105,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$56,900,000. 

(B) COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL RECLAMATION

PROJECTS.—The Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall coordinate the design and construction of the 

project described in subparagraph (A) with the Bureau of 

Reclamation and any operating agent for any Federal reclamation project in the Salt River Basin to avoid impacts 

to existing Federal reclamation facilities and operations in 

the Salt River Basin. 

(7) MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS.—The project for 

flood damage reduction, May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at 

a total cost of $30,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$15,010,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,840,000. 

(8) HAMILTON CITY, GLENN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The project 

for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, 

Hamilton City, Glenn County, California: Report of the Chief 

of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of 

$52,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,100,000 and 

estimated non-Federal cost of $18,300,000. 

(9) SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, IMPERIAL BEACH, CALI- FORNIA.—The project for storm damage reduction, Silver 

Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of 

$13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at an estimated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach nourishment 

over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$21,250,000. 

(10) MATILIJA DAM, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Matilija Dam, Ventura 

County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of $144,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $89,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $54,800,000. 

(11) MIDDLE CREEK, LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The project 

for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, 

Middle Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
201 

Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of 

$45,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,500,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,700,000. 

(12) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa, California: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, 

at a total cost of $134,500,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $87,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$47,000,000. 

(B) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out the project authorized by this paragraph, the Secretary shall— 

(i) construct a recycled water pipeline extending 

from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District 

Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation District Waste Water Treatment Plant to the 

project; and 

(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3. 

(13) DENVER COUNTY REACH, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, DENVER, 

COLORADO.—The project for environmental restoration, Denver 

County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado: Report of 

the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of 

$20,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,065,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000. 

(14) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, 

FLORIDA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out the 

project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and protection of water quality, Central and Southern 

Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, at a total cost of 

$1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$682,500,000, in accordance with section 601 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680) and 

the recommendations of the report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 6, 2004. 

(B) DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—The following projects are not 

authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: 

(i) The uncompleted portions of the project for the 

C–44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan, authorized by section 

601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), at a total cost of 

$147,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$73,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$73,900,000. 

(ii) The uncompleted portions of the Martin County, 

Florida, modifications to the project for Central and 

Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost 

of $15,471,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$8,073,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$7,398,000. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
202 

(iii) The uncompleted portions of the East Coast 

Backpumping, St. Lucie–Martin County, Spillway 

Structure S–311 modifications to the project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 

of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a 

total cost of $77,118,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $21,994,000. 

(15) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION

PROJECT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for ecosystem 

restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, Picayune Strand Restoration 

Project, Collier County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000 

with an estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $187,665,000. 

(16) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, SITE 1 IMPOUNDMENT PROJECT, 

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central 

and Southern Florida, Site 1 Impoundment Project, Palm 

Beach County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,420,000. 

(17) MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief of 

Engineers dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of 

ø$125,270,000¿ $152,510,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of ø$75,140,000¿ $92,007,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of ø$50,130,000¿ $60,503,000. 

(B) GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT.—The non-Federal 

share of the cost of the general reevaluation report that resulted in the report of the Chief of Engineers referred to 

in subparagraph (A) shall be the same percentage as the 

non-Federal share of cost of construction of the project. 

(C) AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall enter into a new 

partnership with the non-Federal interest to reflect the 

cost sharing required by subparagraph (B). 

(18) EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS.—The project for 

environmental restoration and recreation, East St. Louis and 

Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $208,260,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $134,910,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,350,000. 

(19) PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, ILLINOIS.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront Development, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 

28, 2003, at a total cost of $18,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$6,380,000. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
203 

(20) WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, MADISON

COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—The project for flood damage reduction, 

Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 18, 2006, at 

a total cost of $17,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$11,193,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,027,000. 

(21) DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, DES MOINES, IOWA.— The project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $10,780,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $6,967,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $3,813,000. 

(22) LICKING RIVER BASIN, CYNTHIANA, KENTUCKY.—The 

project for flood damage reduction, Licking River Basin, 

Cynthiana, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $18,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,830,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,370,000. 

(23) BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LOUISIANA.—The project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of 

Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $9,600,000. 

The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1⁄2 from 

amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury 

and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund. 

(24) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOUISIANA.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane and storm 

damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief of Engineers dated August 23, 

2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $886,700,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $576,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $310,345,000. 

(B) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The operation, 

maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the 

Houma Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway floodgate features of the project described in subparagraph (A) that provide for inland waterway transportation shall be a Federal responsibility in accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212). 

(25) PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.—The project for navigation, 

Port of Iberia, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers 

dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $131,250,000, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $105,315,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $25,935,000; except that the Secretary, in 

consultation with Vermillion and Iberia Parishes, Louisiana, 

and consistent with the mitigation plan in the report, shall use 

available dredged material and rock placement on the south 

bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the west bank of 

the Freshwater Bayou Channel to provide incidental storm 

surge protection that does not adversely affect the mitigation 

plan. 

(26) SMITH ISLAND, SOMERSET COUNTY, MARYLAND.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Smith Island, Somerset 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
204 

County, Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of $15,580,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,127,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,453,000. 

(27) ROSEAU RIVER, ROSEAU, MINNESOTA.—The project for 

flood damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a 

total cost of $25,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$13,820,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,280,000. 

(28) ARGENTINE, EAST BOTTOMS, FAIRFAX-JERSEY CREEK, AND

NORTH KANSAS LEVEES UNITS, MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

AT KANSAS CITIES, MISSOURI AND KANSAS.—The project for flood 

damage reduction, Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey 

Creek, and North Kansas Levees units, Missouri River and 

tributaries at Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas: Report of 

the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost 

of $65,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $42,530,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,900,000. 

(29) SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, BLUE RIVER, KANSAS CITY, 

MISSOURI.—The project for flood damage reduction, Swope Park 

Industrial Area, Blue River, Kansas City, Missouri: Report of 

the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost 

of $16,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,037,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,943,000. 

(30) GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO TOWNSENDS INLET, NEW

JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a 

total cost of $54,360,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$35,069,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,291,000, 

and at an estimated total cost of $202,500,000 for periodic 

nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $101,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $101,250,000. 

(31) HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, LIBERTY STATE PARK, NEW

JERSEY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Hudson Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New 

Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 25, 

2006, at a total cost of $34,100,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $22,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal 

cost of $11,900,000. 

(B) RESTORATION TEAMS.—In carrying out the project, 

the Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restoration teams composed of estuary restoration experts from 

the Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey department of environmental protection, and the Port Authority of New 

York and New Jersey and other experts designated by the 

Secretary for the purpose of developing habitat restoration 

and water quality enhancement. 

(32) NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION STUDY, MANASQUAN

INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey Shore Protection Study, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
205 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at 

a total cost of $71,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$46,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,165,000, 

and at an estimated total cost of $119,680,000 for periodic 

beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 

estimated Federal cost of $59,840,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $59,840,000. 

(33) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NEW

JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New 

Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 4, 

2006, at a total cost of $115,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $74,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$40,200,000, and at an estimated total cost of $6,500,000 for 

periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $3,250,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $3,250,000. 

(34) SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NEW JERSEY.—The 

project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, South River, Raritan River Basin, New 

Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, 

at a total cost of $122,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $79,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$42,800,000. 

(35) SOUTHWEST VALLEY, BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.—The project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, Bernalillo County, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of 

$24,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,150,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,690,000. 

(36) MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK.—The project for hurricane 

and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a total 

cost of $14,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$7,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,300,000. 

(37) HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OHIO.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for ecosystem restoration, 

Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated August 24, 2006, at a total cost 

of $20,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$13,440,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$7,540,000. 

(B) WAYNE NATIONAL FOREST.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with 

the Secretary of Agriculture, may construct other 

project features on property that is located in the 

Wayne National Forest, Ohio, owned by the United 

States and managed by the Forest Service as described in the report of the Corps of Engineers entitled 

‘‘Hocking River Basin, Ohio, Monday Creek Sub-Basin 

Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report and 

Environmental Assessment’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
206 

(ii) COST.—Each project feature carried out on Federal land shall be designed, constructed, operated, and 

maintained at Federal expense. 

(iii) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out this subparagraph $1,270,000. 

(38) TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—The project for flood damage reduction, town of 

Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of 

$44,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,925,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,575,000. 

(39) PAWLEYS ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawleys Island, South 

Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 

2006, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $5,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$3,140,000, and at an estimated total cost of $21,200,000 for 

periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $10,600,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $10,600,000. 

(40) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, 

TEXAS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at a 

total cost of $188,110,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$100,300,000. 

(B) NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE.—In carrying out the 

project under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall enforce the navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship 

Channel (including the removal or relocation of any facility 

obstructing the project) consistent with the cost sharing requirements of section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211). 

(41) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT

O’CONNOR, MATAGORDA BAY RE-ROUTE, TEXAS.—The project for 

navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port 

O’Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief 

of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of 

$17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be 

paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of 

the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

(42) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS

RIVER, TEXAS.—The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway, High Island to Brazos River, Texas: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of 

$14,450,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be 

paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of 

the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
207 

(43) LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PHASE I, TEXAS.—The 

project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, 

Lower Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of 

$110,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $69,640,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $41,090,000. 

(44) ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.—The project for Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, 

Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000. 

(45) CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, NORFOLK HARBOR

AND CHANNELS, HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, 

Hampton Roads, Virginia: Report of Chief of Engineers 

dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $712,103,000. 

(B) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Notwithstanding sections 101 

and 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2211 and 2213), the Federal share of the cost 

of the project shall be 50 percent. 

(46) CENTRALIA, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS COUNTY, WASHINGTON.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Chehalis River, Lewis County, Washington: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 

27, 2004, at a total cost of $123,770,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $74,740,000 and an estimated non-Federal 

cost of $49,030,000. 

(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall— 

(i) credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the project up to 

$6,500,000 for the cost of planning and design work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest in accordance 

with the project study plan dated November 28, 1999; 

and 

(ii) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of design and construction work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 

project. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 20320 OF THE CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS 

RESOLUTION, 2007 

(Public Law 109–289) 

SEC. 20320. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
208 

(c) The Secretary of Energy shall enter into an arrangement with 

an independent auditor for annual evaluations of the program 

under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In addition to 

the independent audit, the Comptroller General shall conduct øan 

annual review¿ a review every three years of the Department’s execution of the program under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. The results of the independent audit and the Comptroller 

General’s review shall be provided directly to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

* * * * * * * 

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: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
209 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 075 81287A.065
210 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Department or Activity Amount 

Corps of Engineers—Civil ............................................................................... $200,000,000 

Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy .............157,000,000 

Department of Energy: Weapons Activities ...................................................142,000,000 

Department of Energy: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .......................... 20,000,000 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act. 

[In millions of dollars] 

302 (b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Mandatory ............................................... 0 0 0 1 0 

Discretionary ........................................... 30,426 38,363 30,426 38,363 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table contains five-year projections prepared 

by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the 

budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2014 ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 18,871 

2015 ...................................................................................................................................................... 8,634 

2016 ...................................................................................................................................................... 2,587 

2017 ...................................................................................................................................................... 206 

2018 and future years .......................................................................................................................... 53 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ................................................................................................................................................... 81 

Outlays .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 16 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
211 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 015 here HR135.001
212 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 16 here HR135.002
213 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here HR135.003
214 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here HR135.004
215 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here HR135.005
216 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 013 81287A.066
217 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 014 81287A.067
218 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 015 81287A.068
219 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 016 81287A.069
220 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 017 81287A.070
221 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 018 81287A.071
222 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 019 81287A.072
223 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 020 81287A.073
224 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 021 81287A.074
225 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF NITA LOWEY AND MARCY KAPTUR 

We commend Chairman Rogers and Chairman Frelinghuysen for 

their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. While 

Chairman Frelinghuysen has worked to incorporate interests of 

Members from both parties with a budget allocation far below what 

was envisioned under the Budget Control Act, it is impossible to 

sufficiently fund critical water resource projects, support science activities necessary for American competitiveness, and contribute to 

our national defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research, 

and nonproliferation funding. 

While we appreciate the Chairman’s efforts on this bill, we are 

dismayed by the broader House Majority’s refusal to go to conference to forge a bipartisan agreement on the budget resolution 

that addresses sequestration and provides workable 302(b) allocations for Appropriations bills. This failure of the House Majority’s 

Leadership imperils this year’s appropriations process, making it 

nearly impossible to move all 12 bills. Sequestration was intended 

to be a mechanism to force the parties to come together to address 

our long-term fiscal challenges. It was never meant to be, in itself, 

a tool for deficit reduction, and it was certainly never meant to be 

the basis for a discretionary spending cap in a budget resolution. 

The subcommittee’s allocation is $30,426,000,000, a decrease of 

$4,057,519,000 from the Administration’s budget request and 

$2,814,000,000 below the 2013 level, adjusted for Hurricane Sandy 

reconstruction and the across-the-board cut required by sections 

3001 and 3004 of Division D of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013. This allocation is nearly 2 percent below the level of the bill after the reductions required by sequestration and $462,000,000 below the levels of 2008. Exacerbating this reduction is the concurrent increase of $1,569,848,000 

in the Weapons and Naval Reactors accounts, leaving the remaining elements of the bill more than $2,000,000,000 below the levels 

in 2008. 

The Chairman tried his best to craft a reasonable bill at this 

level, prioritizing some of the security programs and the Corps of 

Engineers water resource programs, but reasonable funding for 

these areas required deep and severe reductions in other important 

areas of the bill. Among these drastic reductions are a nearly 60 

percent reduction to renewable energy programs and an 81 percent 

reduction to ARPA–E. The cost of renewable energy is rapidly becoming competitive with other sources of energy, and this shift may 

accelerate with the President’s renewed focus on clean energy. 

Shortchanging critical energy and infrastructure investments will 

slow economic growth and hinder American competitiveness. 

While we recognize that difficult choices must be made to address the nation’s serious financial situation, this bill starkly illustrates the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by the House 

budget. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply insufficient 

to meet the challenges posed by the energy crisis, the need to 

maintain our water infrastructure and our national security requirements. 

We commend the Chairman for prioritizing the Corps of Engi- neers. However, when the rescission of $200,000,000 is included, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
226 

funding for the critical activities of the Corps are $50,000,000 

below the budget request and $304,000,000 below 2013. We must 

modernize our infrastructure by making preventative and proactive 

investments. It makes more fiscal sense to prevent a disaster than 

to respond. Additionally, businesses and individuals are much more 

likely to invest in a community if there is confidence in its infrastructure. Further, the nation’s ports and waterways are critical to 

ensuring that American made goods can move to market, both domestically and abroad. We firmly believe that our underinvestment 

in infrastructure continues to hamper our economic recovery and 

has prolonged the current employment crisis. 

The Corps of Engineers currently has a backlog of authorized projects in excess of $60,000,000,000. Even limiting the figure to 

those projects currently budgeted, the balance to complete these ongoing projects is more than $20,000,000,000. This bill does very little to move these projects forward, reducing the Construction account by $331,000,000 from 2013. Instead, the bill continues the 

steady decline in funding for water resource infrastructure, bringing a total reduction of $769,000,000 to the Corps since 2010. The 

Corps’ Construction account has been reduced by $688,000,000 in 

that same timeframe. We should be doing more to build infrastructure and create jobs, not less. 

To be clear: this decreased investment in water infrastructure 

has consequences across the country. By not supporting these 

projects, Members are hurting the direct constituencies that they 

profess to serve. Without federal support, construction jobs are 

never created and local businesses and individuals never see the 

kind of indirect economic benefits that encourage them to embrace 

risk and make critical investments in their communities. 

With regard to the applied energy programs at the Department 

of Energy, this bill would slash funding for applied energy research 

and development by more than half, even as foreign competitors 

double down to develop 21st Century technology and undermine 

our markets through illegal dumping and intellectual property 

poaching. We must develop a more energy secure future as fossil 

energy sources are depleted and global demand rises with population growth; this bill does nothing to achieve that end. 

We are disappointed that renewable energy programs in this bill, 

so vital to America’s future, are drastically reduced, though the 

scope of the cut is difficult to discern given the radically altered 

budget structure. The majority claims that these deep reductions to 

renewable energy programs are justified because sufficient private 

sector support exists to ensure the continuation of cutting edge 

science and technological innovation. This claim is misguided and 

incongruent with both facts and experience. If you include both of 

the programs as outlined in the budget and in the 2013 appropriations that are now combined into Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency and include the rescission of $157,000,000 in 

2013 funds, the reduction is $2,119,078,000 from the budget request and $1,127,954,000 135 from 2013. That is $700,000,000 less 

than this same subcommittee recommended for these purposes just 

one year ago. 

In providing for critical research and development for those sectors that currently provide the bulk of our electricity generation, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
227 

we cannot sacrifice the future. Renewable energy can achieve cost 

competitiveness, but a continued and sustained research and development program is necessary and appropriate. Without this investment, the nation will be forced to continue its reliance on imports 

to meet our energy needs. The United States can leverage its 

strength—innovation—to restore the United States to a position of 

global leadership in clean energy. This effort is a critical national 

priority, with implications for our economic competitiveness, national security, and environmental legacy. 

Our nation’s chief strategic vulnerability is its dependence on foreign energy imports and our lack of energy independence. The 

United States has spent $2,300,000,000,000 importing foreign petroleum since 2003. This represents thousands of dollars out of the 

pockets of every hard-working American and are dollars spent, not 

in much-needed American job creation, but overseas, assisting our 

competitors in developing their economies and their energy futures. 

Our republic will not compete in the 21st Century and beyond if 

we further reduce investments in this area and cede the energy future to other countries. 

Foreign competition in energy poses a real threat and we appreciate the Chairman’s commitment to ensure that technology developed with taxpayer dollars benefits our nation. The Department of 

Energy must do more to ensure that intellectual property supported by federal dollars is used to further the interests of the 

United Sates economy. 

While we are concerned with the level of funding, we appreciate 

the Chairman’s commitment to American manufacturing with the 

limited funds at his disposal. Manufacturing remains one of the 

most important drivers in our economy, yet only 12 percent of the 

nation’s private sector workforce is currently employed in manufacturing. We see very little merit in using federal dollars to foster 

technological advances or breakthroughs for products that are not 

ultimately manufactured domestically. We must do more to reverse 

the trend of domestic firms shifting production overseas, because— 

to put it simply—domestic manufacturing drives domestic innovation. When manufacturing ceases on a product in the U.S. it is 

often only a matter of time before the engineering and research 

and development responsible for the product move overseas. This 

shift makes it virtually impossible for our nation to compete for 

and create the next generation of products. In turn, the loss of 

these employment opportunities discourages students from pursuing education in scientific and engineering fields. 

The Science account, critical to the competitiveness of our nation, 

is reduced by 5 percent from 2012. The bill, with an 81 percent reduction, would effectively end the relatively new Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E) program. We are beginning to see the initial payoff from the ARPA–E, which advances 

high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early 

for private-sector investment. Both of these programs drive innovations to support our scientific competitiveness that we believe will 

eventually provide much of the inspiration to overcome the energy 

crisis and address climate change. Return on investment from our 

publicly funded research and development ranges from 20 to 67 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
228 

percent. With this rate of return, we should be increasing our investment in science; this bill moves in the opposite direction. 

Nonproliferation programs are our first line of defense and the 

most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent goal of securing and 

reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade material. While the 

Chairman increases the request for the Global Threat Reduction 

Initiative’s (GTRI) international material and removal activities, an 

action that we applaud, this bill cuts these critical efforts by $599 

million when compared to 2013 for the same activities. The Administration has deferred each of the three program goals for GTRI 

over the last several budgets. In highly enriched uranium reactor 

conversion, the budget requests have delayed completion by ten 

years; in removal of vulnerable material the delay has amounted 

to three years; finally for the category of protection, the Administration’s goal has slipped from 8,500 buildings protected with additional security features by 2025 to 2044. The Chairman simply did 

not have the resources to reverse this rapid slide to the right of the 

schedule. 

We are concerned that the funding the bill includes for Environmental Management (EM) activities is insufficient to meet the federal government’s legal obligations to clean up its defense nuclear 

waste. This program is critical to addressing the environmental 

legacies of the Cold War and the Manhattan Project. Given that 

EM’s portfolio is one of the nation’s largest environmental and financial liabilities, we have the responsibility to address the waste 

and contamination in the affected communities in a timely and 

competent manner. 

The bill continues the subcommittee’s efforts over the years to 

improve program and project management at all of the agencies 

under its jurisdiction. In particular, we commend the Chairman for 

including the statutory reporting requirement on Life Extension 

Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA). Given current estimates, it is unclear that the plans of the 

Administration are realistic or affordable under current budgetary 

constraints. The provision will ensure that the Committee has the 

necessary information to make informed decisions on proposals 

made by the NNSA. This is just one illustration of the subcommittee’s continued efforts to improve program and project management 

at all of the agencies under its jurisdiction. We strongly support 

the Chairman on this and all the other provisions, old and new, 

aimed at increased oversight and improved project management at 

the Corps and DOE. However, we are disappointed that the subcommittee must repeat so many of these provisions from year to 

year. It would behoove the agencies to incorporate these policies 

into their management structure. 

Republicans on the Budget Committee continue to push the outrageous notion that we can balance our budget through cuts to 

non-defense discretionary spending, which account for only 17 percent of federal spending. This action will only harm our nation. 

We commend the Chairman’s work; however, the allocation for 

this bill is insufficient and irresponsible, and we cannot in good 

conscience support it. It is our firm hope that the Committee will 

be provided a workable path forward for the FY14 Appropriations 

bills. We look forward to the day we return allocations to acceptVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Jul 03, 2013 Jkt 081683 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR135.XXX HR135

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
229 

able levels and to working with the Chairman and the members of 

this subcommittee to draft a bill worthy of support. 

NITA LOWEY. 

MARCY KAPTUR. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS