```

[House Report 113-135]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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:
                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

                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.

                              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.
    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 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 
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 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.
    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 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 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    Guidance on tracking emergency
 and Coastal Emergencies.                 related activities
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses.......  Report on plan for allowing
                                          firearms on Corps lands
Army Corps of Engineers/General          Reprogramming requirements
 Provisions.
Army Corps of Engineers/General          Restriction on use of
 Provisions.                              continuing contracts
Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of    GAO Report on electronic
 Reclamation.                             submission in contracting
Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of    Report on performance metrics
 Reclamation.
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related  Report on water needs in
 Resources.                               Kettleman City, California
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related  Report on compliance with
 Resources.                               direction on buried metallic
                                          water pipe
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related  Guidance on assembly and
 Resources.                               analysis of data on pipeline
                                          reliability
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related  Report on costs and benefits to
 Resources.                               address quagga and zebra
                                          mussels
Bureau of Reclamation/Policy and         Guidance on new scope of
 Administration.                          information for budget
                                          justifications
Bureau of Reclamation/Policy and         Report on five year
 Administration.                          comprehensive spending plan
Bureau of Reclamation/General            Reprogramming requirements
 Provisions.
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,   Report on programs supporting
 Energy Reliability, and Efficiency       thermal energy generation
 (REERE).
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         Plan for cleanup of SEFOR at
 Cleanup.                                 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     Guidance on lead program office
 Nonproliferation.                        for nuclear forensics
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear     Report on outcome of four-year
 Nonproliferation.                        goal to secure nuclear
                                          materials
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear     Review of DNN performance
 Nonproliferation.                        measures
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear     Prohibition of continued study
 Nonproliferation.                        of MOX alternatives
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear     Report on NNSA construction
 Nonproliferation.                        Other Project Costs
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear     Establishment of new reporting
 Nonproliferation.                        controls for GTRI
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear     Program review of Domestic
 Nonproliferation.                        Radiological Protection and
                                          Removal
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             Independent study of risks of
 Environmental Cleanup.                   outstanding environmental
                                          cleanup
Department of Energy/Defense             Establishment of reporting
 Environmental Cleanup.                   controls for Waste Treatment
                                          Plant
Department of Energy/Defense             Guidance on semi-annual reports
 Environmental Cleanup.                   for Waste Treatment Plant
Department of Energy/Defense             Prohibition on restarting
 Environmental Cleanup.                   construction of Pretreament
                                          Plant
Department of Energy/Other Defense       Report on HSS annual oversight
 Activities.                              activities
Department of Energy/Other Defense       Guidance on development of
 Activities.                              graded security posture
Department of Energy/Bonneville Power..  Report on any direction from
                                          the Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy/Southeastern Power  Report on any direction from
 Admin.                                   the Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy/Southwestern Power  Report on any direction from
 Admin.                                   the Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy/Western Area Power  Report on any direction from
 Admin.                                   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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   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 short-term economic benefits by directly creating jobs, 
but also provide the foundation necessary for long-term 
economic growth. Further, in the case of flood and storm damage 
reduction, investment can prevent or reduce the costs of 
recovery from flood events. 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 high-performing.
    Construction funds were allocated based on a mix of 
factors, including severity of dam safety problems, benefit-to-
cost ratio, risk-to-life index, Endangered Species Act 
compliance, and restoration of a nationally- or regionally-
significant aquatic ecosystem. Operation and Maintenance funds 
were allocated based on a mix of factors, including tonnage 
movements, risk and consequences assessment, and visitation at 
recreation sites. It is entirely unclear, though, how any of 
these factors were ranked or weighted during development of the 
budget.
    Most concerning is the fact that these metrics were 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 
HMTF-related activities each year than is included in that 
year's budget 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 diameter, 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.

                        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.

                            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 benefit-to-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 cost-related measures or metrics suitable for use in 
evaluating AER projects for authorization and for funding. The 
Corps shall not 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.

                               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-project-based programs, the Congress at times 
disagreed with the priorities stated in the President's budget 
request and made its priorities known in appropriations bills. 
Final federal government priorities were established in Acts 
passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed by the 
President.
    On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to 
prohibit congressional earmarks, as defined in House rule XXI. 
That definition encompasses project-level funding not requested 
by the President. Following that vote, the Committee 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.
    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 
project-specific 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 situation 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).

                        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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2013         FY 2014
                             Account                                 enacted*         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:

    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 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:

    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 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;
          --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 indicated 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:

    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 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:

    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 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.
    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 end-user 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, 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.
    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.

             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.

                  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,        $300,000
 and Conservation.......................................
Section 201(a)(1) Mitigation Measures...................         700,000

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

    For program oversight and administration, the Committee 
recommends $1,300,000, the same as the budget request.

                         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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2013      FY 2014
             Account                 enacted*     request     Cmte rec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Related Resources......     $895,000     $791,135     $812,744
Central Valley Project                  53,068       53,288       53,288
 Restoration Fund................
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            - - -       26,000        - - -
 Fund............................
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.

                      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:

    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 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.

                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 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.

                        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.

                        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 long-standing 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.

                          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 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 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 technologies 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 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.
    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 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 high-
efficiency 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 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 full-scale 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.
    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 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.

                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 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 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 Remote-
Handled 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 
Research 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 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 non-FTA 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 
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 multi-year 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 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 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 facilities 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 Cleanup 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 activities 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 
development 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 world-leading 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).

                         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 
fiscal 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 free-electron 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 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 $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 short-lived 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 continues 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 
development 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 transportation fuel alternatives that 
can reduce our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling 
technologies with exceptionally high energy efficiency, and 
improvements in petroleum refining processes. 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 reduction 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 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.
    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 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 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 (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 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 long-term 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.
    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 
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 commitments 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 
standing 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 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.
    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 
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 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 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 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 follow-on 
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 request 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.

                       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 authority. 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 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 $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 instead 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 security 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.
    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 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 $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 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.
    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.
    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 
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 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 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.

                    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 expenditure 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 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.
    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.

           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, 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.

                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 decision-3 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 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 eight-state region near the mouth of the Mississippi 
River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each 
participating state, the DRA is designed to remedy severe and 
chronic economic distress by stimulating economic development 
and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on 
the region's economy. The DRA seeks to help local communities 
leverage other federal and state programs, which are focused on 
basic infrastructure development, transportation improvements, 
business development, and job training services. Under federal 
law, at least 75 percent of appropriated funds must be invested 
in distressed counties and parishes, with 50 percent of the 
funds 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.

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

Apropriation, 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 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 opportunity 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 on-site 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.............................             - - -

                           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 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.
    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 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 license 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; 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.
    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 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.
    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 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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 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 [$775,000,000] $2,918,000,000, with a first 
        Federal cost of [$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 Federal cost of 
        $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
        $2,070,000.
          (5) Salt river (rio salado oeste), maricopa county, 
        arizona.--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, 
        arizona.--
                  (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, 
        california.--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 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.
                          (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 [$125,270,000] 
                $152,510,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
                [$75,140,000] $92,007,000 and an estimated non-
                Federal cost of [$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.
          (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 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: 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 non-Federal 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 non-Federal 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''.
                          (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.
          (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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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 [an 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:

                              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.

            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 
Engineers. However, when the rescission of $200,000,000 is 
included, 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, 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 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 acceptable levels and to working with the 
Chairman and the members of this subcommittee to draft a bill 
worthy of support.

                                   Nita Lowey.
                                   Marcy Kaptur.

                                  

```