73–926 PDF 

Calendar No. 383 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 112–164 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2013 

APRIL 26, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2465] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2465) making appropriations for energy and water development and related 

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for 

other purposes, favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

New obligational authority 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $33,432,482,000 

Amount of 2012 appropriations ............................... 33,805,000,000 

Amount of 2013 budget estimate ............................ 33,684,037,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2012 appropriations .......................................... ¥372,518,000 

2013 budget estimate ........................................ ¥251,555,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4 

Summary of Estimates and Recommendations ..................................................... 4 

Title I: 

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

General Investigations ....................................................................... 19 

Construction, General ........................................................................ 27 

Flood Control, Mississippi River, and Tributaries .......................... 34 

Operation and Maintenance, General .............................................. 36 

Regulatory Program ........................................................................... 52 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 53 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 53 

General Expenses ............................................................................... 53 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) .......... 54 

General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil .............................. 55 

Title II: 

Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 57 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 59 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ......................................... 66 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 67 

Policy and Administration ................................................................. 67 

Indian Water Rights Settlements ..................................................... 67 

San Joaquin Restoration Fund ......................................................... 67 

General Provisions—Department of the Interior .................................... 68 

Title III: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................... 72 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................................ 75 

Nuclear Energy .......................................................................................... 76 

Fossil Energy Research and Development .............................................. 79 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................... 80 

Elk Hills School Lands Fund ................................................................... 80 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................... 80 

Strategic Petroleum Account .................................................................... 80 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ..................................................... 80 

Energy Information Administration ........................................................ 81 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 81 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .. 82 

Science ........................................................................................................ 82 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................................ 88 

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program .................................. 89 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program ............. 89 

Departmental Administration .................................................................. 89 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................................ 89 

Weapons Activities .................................................................................... 93 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................... 100 

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 104 

Office of the Administrator ....................................................................... 104 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................. 105 

Other Defense Activities ........................................................................... 107 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 108 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Department of Energy—Continued 

Power Marketing Administrations—Continued 

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 108 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration .................................................... 109 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ................. 109 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses ......... 109 

General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 129 

Title IV: 

Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 130 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 130 

Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 130 

Denali Commission ................................................................................... 131 

Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................... 131 

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .............................................. 131 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 131 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 131 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 132 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects ........................................................................................ 132 

Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 133 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 134 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 134 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 135 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 144 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 145 
(4) 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for the fiscal 

year 2013 beginning October 1, 2012, and ending September 30, 

2013, for energy and water development, and for other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources development programs 

and related activities of the Department of the Army, Civil Functions—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program in title 

I; for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation in 

title II; for the Department of Energy’s energy research activities, 

including environmental restoration and waste management, and 

atomic energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration in title III; and for related independent agencies 

and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, 

Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission in title IV. 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The fiscal year 2013 budget estimates for the bill total 

$33,684,037,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $33,432,482,000. This is 

$251,555,000 below the budget estimates and $372,518,000 below 

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held 

three sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2013 appropriation 

bill. Witnesses included officials and representatives of the Federal 

agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The recommendations for fiscal year 2013 therefore, have been 

developed after careful consideration of available data. 

VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE

By a vote of 28 to 1 the Committee on April 26, 2012, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate. 

OVERHEAD COSTS

Federal agencies have been directed by Executive Order 13589 to 

plan for reducing the combined costs of certain activities by not less 

than 20 percent below fiscal year 2010 levels, in fiscal year 2013. 

The departments, agencies, boards, and commissions funded in this 

bill should continue to seek to reduce operating expenses by placing 

greater scrutiny on overhead costs. Savings may be achieved by reducing nonessential travel, office supply, rent, and utility costs. 

The Committee directs each department, agency, board, and commission funded in this bill to develop a plan to reduce such costs 
5 

by at least 10 percent in fiscal year 2013. Plans to achieve these 

savings in fiscal year 2013 should be submitted to the Committee 

no later than 30 days after enactment of this act. 

CONFERENCES

The head of any department, agency, board or commission funded by this act shall submit quarterly reports to the Inspector General, or the senior ethics official for any entity without an inspector 

general, of the appropriate department, agency, board or commission regarding the costs and contracting procedures relating to 

each conference held by the department, agency, board or commission during fiscal year 2013 for which the cost to the United States 

Government was more than $20,000. Such quarterly reports shall 

be available electronically for public access. No log-in shall be required to search or sort the data contained in such reports. The 

term ‘‘conference’’ means a meeting that (1) is held for consultation, 

education, awareness, or discussion; (2) involves costs associated 

with travel and lodging for some participants. 

Each report submitted shall include, for each conference held 

during the applicable quarter— 

—a description of the purpose of that conference; 

—the number of participants attending that conference; 

—a detailed statement of the costs to the United States Government relating to that conference, including— 

—the cost of any food or beverages; 

—the cost of any audio-visual services; and 

—a discussion of the methodology used to determine which 

costs relate to that conference; and 

—a description of the contracting procedures relating to that conference, including— 

—whether contracts were awarded on a competitive basis for 

that conference; and 

—a discussion of any cost comparison conducted by the department, agency, board or commission in evaluating potential 

contractors for that conference. 

A grant or contract funded by amounts appropriated by this act 

may not be used for the purpose of defraying the costs of a conference that is not directly and programmatically related to the 

purpose for which the grant or contract was awarded, such as a 

banquet or conference held in connection with planning, training, 

assessment, review, or other routine purposes related to a project 

funded by the grant or contract. 

None of the funds made available in this act may be used to send 

or otherwise pay for the attendance of more than 50 employees of 

a single department or agency, who are stationed in the United 

States, at any single international conference unless the department or agency head reports to the Committees on Appropriations 

at least 5 days in advance that such attendance is important to the 

national interest. 
(6) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 

35,000 civilian and 650 military members that perform both military and Civil Works functions. The military and civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work hand in hand as leaders 

in engineering and environmental matters. The diverse workforce 

of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural resource 

managers, and other professionals meets the demands of changing 

times and requirements as a vital part of America’s Army. 

The Corps’ mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering 

services to the Nation including: 

—Planning, designing, building, and operating water resources 

and other Civil Works projects (Navigation, Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response, et cetera); 

—Designing and managing the construction of military facilities 

for the Army and Air Force (Military Construction); and 

—Providing design and construction management support for 

other Defense and Federal agencies (Interagency and International Services). 

The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works missions 

of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000 civilians and 

about 290 military officers are responsible for this nationwide mission. 

While the Corps Civil Works programs impact all 50 States and 

virtually every citizen of our Nation, they are a relatively minor 

part of the Federal budget. Funding for the Corps comprises a little 

over 0.13 percent of the total Federal budget for fiscal year 2013. 

OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Corps of Engineers is composed of $4,731,000,000 in new budget authority. This is a 

decrease of $271,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount 

exclusive of $1,724,000,000 in emergency funding. 

The tradition of this bill has been that virtually all funding for 

the Corps of Engineers is designated to specific studies/projects. 

The administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2013 continues 

this tradition. The four major study/project accounts (General Investigations, Construction, General, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance) comprise $4,205,000,000 of 

the administration’s overall budget request of $4,731,000,000 for 
7 

the Corps of Engineers. Only $325,628,000 of the budget request in 

these four accounts is considered as programmatic funding or national programs. That is about 7.7 percent of the funding proposed 

in these accounts. The remainder of the $3,798,802,000 proposed in 

the four major accounts is divided among 914 individual line item 

studies or projects proposed by the administration. As the Corps of 

Engineers has no inherent programmatic authorities under which 

the organization was created, all of these individual studies, 

projects and programmatic authorities are specifically authorized 

by Congress and specifically funded through appropriations acts. 

This Committee continues to believe that Members of Congress 

are best positioned to know the unique needs of their individual 

States and Congressional Districts. In past years, Congress, exercising their prerogatives under the Constitution would have added 

projects and studies to the administration’s request to ensure that 

the Nation’s water resource needs were met. As the four major 

study/project accounts in the Corps are comprised of individual line 

items of studies or projects, the Committee usually added line 

items for studies or projects that were not included in the administration’s budget request or, alternatively, increased funding to 

items requested by the administration to accelerate the project delivery process on those items. 

The line items that were added by Congress in previous years 

were authorized and vetted in a public process identical to those 

line items that the administration included in their request. The 

difference between the items added by Congress and those included 

by the administration is that the administration applied a number 

of supplemental criterion for budgeting a study or project that the 

authorizations for these studies or projects does not require. Establishment of budget criteria was, and continues to be, an administrative prerogative. It should be understood that this criteria is established not necessarily to meet the Nation’s water resource 

needs, but rather to help the administration decide which needs 

they choose to include in their budget request. These are choices 

made by the administration within the context of their priorities. 

History has shown that this criteria is extremely flexible depending 

on what an administration wants to fund in a given year. This 

Committee does not believe that this budget criteria, established by 

the administration without input from the public or Congress, has 

any more validity than the criteria that the Congress has used in 

the past to decide which projects to fund. 

Due to the vagaries of the administration’s budget criteria, the 

Congress has provided the consistency in funding for items within 

the Corps of Engineers budget. Corps of Engineers projects generally have two definitive points where Congress can decide the 

Federal commitment to a water resources development project. The 

first point is when an item is being studied. By providing the initial study funding, the Congress is making a tacit commitment that 

it intends to see the study process through to completion. By the 

same token when a project is authorized for construction and receives its initial construction funding, that is a commitment that 

the Congress intends to see the project through to completion. That 

is why so few ‘‘new’’ studies and projects have been funded in recent years. Congress has acknowledged the tight fiscal environment 
8 

by not creating tremendous outyear obligations for the Corps with 

new work. 

Nearly all Corps studies and projects are cost shared. That 

means a local sponsor has contractually agreed to provide a proportionate non-Federal share (ranging from 25 percent–50 percent) to 

match the Federal funds appropriated. When these projects are not 

provided funding either through the budget or an appropriations 

act, the work is deferred until funding is appropriated. This inconsistent funding increases project costs, defers the projects benefits 

to the national economy and plays havoc with the non-Federal entities’ financing plans for projects and studies. Traditionally, Congress has provided the consistency for studies and projects undertaken by the Corps of Engineers through congressionally directed 

spending by maintaining the commitments to local sponsors and insuring consistent levels of funding for the projects or studies that 

were initiated or funded in appropriation acts. Overall navigation funding is increased $173,000,000 in this 

budget proposal compared to what the administration proposed in 

fiscal year 2012. It is still down from the enacted amount for fiscal 

year 2012, but the Committee believes this is a positive move by 

the administration. However, Flood Risk Management is down 

$41,000,000 in this budget proposal when compared to fiscal year 

2012. The Committee is puzzled by this cut, particularly after 

record setting floods on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in 

2011. While $1,724,000,000 in emergency supplemental funding 

was provided in December 2011 to address repairs to flood control 

infrastructure damaged by natural disasters, that funding did not 

provide for all of the needs to return existing infrastructure to predisaster conditions. Fortunately, the funding allowed the Corps to 

address the highest priorities. However, one would think that flood 

control funding should have been increased in the budget request 

to address the needs and weaknesses in existing flood control infrastructure as well as the needs for new infrastructure that the flooding and other natural disasters revealed. 

The General Investigations Program is proposed at $102,000,000 

for fiscal year 2013. This is a decrease of $23,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. This account funds the 

preauthorization studies necessary to determine the Federal interests in a water resource problem or need. The request provides 

funding for 80 studies for a total of almost $53,000,000 of the request. Of that amount, five studies are funded at $24,000,000. The 

other 75 studies are funded with the remaining $29,000,000. Four 

ecosystem restoration, one deep-draft navigation and one nationwide study are proposed as ‘‘new study starts’’ in the request. 

The Construction, General account is proposed at $1,471,000,000 

for fiscal year 2013. The 95 line items proposed for the construction, general account can be broken down as follows: 

—Dam safety activities $402,800,000 (27.4 percent); 

—Environmental compliance activities comprise $196,000,000 

(13.3 percent); 

—Ecosystem or environmental restoration activities comprise 

$251,000,000 (17.1 percent); 

—Flood control and storm damage reduction activities comprise 

$227,000,000 (15.4 percent); 
9 

—Coastal or deep draft navigation activities comprise 

$141,100,000 (9.6 percent); 

—Inland and shallow draft navigation activities comprise 

$155,700,000 (10.6 percent); and 

—An additional $97,400,000 is proposed for national programs 

(6.6 percent). 

This is a decrease of $223,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount for this account. This account funds 

postauthorization studies and physical construction of authorized 

projects. Dam safety assurance and flood control projects that are 

primarily included due to their substantial life savings benefits appear to have taken the biggest reductions when compared to the 

fiscal year 2012 budget request. One large ecosystem restoration 

project, one flood control/ecosystem restoration project and one nonstructural flood control project are proposed as ‘‘new construction 

starts’’ in the request. Seven projects are projected for completion. 

The Mississippi River and Tributaries account is proposed at 

$234,000,000. This account funds studies, construction and operation and maintenance activities along the Mississippi River and 

designated tributaries from Cape Giradeau, Missouri, to the Gulf 

of Mexico. This is a decrease of $18,000,000 from the fiscal year 

2012 enacted amount. The request only provides construction funding for projects along the main stem of the Mississippi and 

Atchafalaya Rivers. No construction work is proposed along the 

tributaries of the project. 

The Operation and Maintenance account is proposed at 

$2,398,000,000. This is a decrease of $14,000,000 from the fiscal 

year 2012 enacted amount. This account funds post authorization 

studies of operating projects, maintenance of Federal facilities and 

Federal operation of facilities where authorized by law. At this 

funding level, the Corps’ budget estimates that 186 partial and 57 

full recreation area closings will occur. Reduced recreational opportunities will occur at one third of the budgeted projects. Navigation 

funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] is increased to an estimated $848,000,000 in the request. This is a 

$90,000,000 increase over the fiscal year 2012 request but is still 

down $43,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. 

The Regulatory Program is proposed at $205,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2013. This is an increase of $12,000,000 over the fiscal year 

2012 enacted amount to this program that provides the funding for 

the Corps nationwide regulatory roles primarily under section 404 

of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act of 1899. 

The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly 

Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] proposed at 

$104,000,000 was cut by $5,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. This program was transferred to the Corps from the 

Department of Energy, because the Committee was concerned with 

management and cost issues of the program within the Energy Department. This is a program that is being well-managed by the 

Corps and should have stable, adequate budget resources to continue these radiological clean-up activities. This proposed decrease 

in funding will further stretch out the clean-up of these sites. 
10 

The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is proposed at $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is an increase of 

$3,000,000 over the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. These funds 

are proposed for readiness and preparedness activities for the 

Corps of Engineers. 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) is proposed as a separate account for $5,000,000. This is the same 

as provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee continues to believe 

that the Assistant Secretary’s office should be funded in the Defense appropriations bill. However, until such time as this account 

can be reintegrated into that bill, the Committee agrees that the 

office should be funded as a separate account. The Assistant Secretary’s duties encompass much more than the Civil Works functions of the Corps of Engineers and the budget needs of the office 

should be addressed separately. The General Expenses [GE] account is proposed at $182,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is a $3,000,000 decrease from the fiscal 

year 2012 enacted amount. The Committee notes that the Corps 

operates one of the most efficient headquarters staffs in the National Capital region. Only about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at 

headquarters as opposed to 10 percent or more for comparable 

agencies in the National Capital region. 

THE NATION’S WATERWAY SYSTEM

The Nation’s waterway system constructed, operated, and maintained by the Corps is an incredibly versatile and interconnected 

system providing vital linkages to other modes of transportation as 

well as providing benefits to the national economy of more than 

$7,000,000,000 through transportation savings over other available 

modes of transportation. This system has been developed over the 

past 200 years and is showing its age. There are many lock chambers that are long past their design life or that need to be enlarged 

to handle increased traffic. Also, many harbor and channel projects 

need to be deepened or enlarged to handle contemporary vessel 

sizes. A major recapitalization of this infrastructure is needed, particularly if the Nation is to meet the President’s goal of doubling 

exports in the next 5 years. 

Two trust funds were set up to fund portions of our navigation 

infrastructure. The HMTF provides for 100 percent of the maintenance of eligible deep draft projects, and the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund [IWTF] provides for one-half of the construction cost of 

designated projects on the Nation’s inland waterways. Both of 

these funds are subject to appropriation. The HMTF does a good 

job of collecting revenues, but appropriations generally lag considerably behind the collections so the fund balance continues to grow. 

The IWTF appropriations match the revenue collection, but the 

revenues collected are insufficient to undertake all of the needed 

work. Therefore the fund balance is essentially zero. 

Past investments have provided adequate, albeit in some cases 

inefficient, infrastructure to deal with current commodity and cargo 

movements. Only about 20 percent of the administration’s proposed 

construction budget is dedicated to navigation projects. Despite 

whatever other efforts may be underway to meet the goal of doubling exports, the budget request for the Corps for improvements 
11 

and maintenance of the waterway system falls woefully short of the 

needs. Ports are routinely not dredged to their full authorized dimensions. It is hard for this Committee to understand how exports 

can be doubled without improvements and adequate maintenance 

to the projects that provide for the transit and the exit points for 

these commodities. 

The Committee is concerned that there are major changes in 

worldwide shipping and trade occurring and on the horizon that 

our Nation’s water infrastructure is not equipped to handle. One of 

these changes is the enlargement and deepening of the Panama 

Canal that will allow a shift to larger container vessels with a need 

for deeper ports and navigation channels. However, larger vessels 

are also transiting the Suez Canal and more and more will likely 

be attempting to call at the Nation’s ports. If larger ships are unable to dock here, they may be forced to dock in other countries 

with the appropriate infrastructure and then reconfigure ships and 

cargos to accommodate U.S. water infrastructure, leading to increased transportation costs, higher end-unit prices and loss of 

jobs. 

Along with deeper channels to accommodate these larger vessels, 

ports will need efficient dockside infrastructure to handle the 

throughput of this increased trade. Intermodal improvements at 

ports and possibly short sea shipping will also be a part of trade 

movements in and among ports. Without this system, transportation of commodities, exports and imports, would become vastly 

more expensive. For more than 25 years, the current mechanisms 

have been in place. However, how water transportation infrastructure is planned, designed, constructed, maintained, and funded has 

not kept pace with the pace of change in worldwide trade. 

Water transportation infrastructure was and continues to be a 

linchpin of our national economy. It is time to determine if there 

is a better way to develop this infrastructure. The Committee believes it is important for the Congress to rethink the Federal role 

in water transportation to determine if there is a better way to 

plan, build and finance this critical infrastructure. The Committee 

will work with the appropriate authorizing and tax writing committees as well as industry and the administration to determine a 

path forward to provide the water transportation infrastructure 

that will be required for the next 50–100 years. 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

The Committee remains concerned about the Nation’s Inland 

Waterways. This network of waterways moves nearly 600 million 

tons of cargo annually or 16 percent of our domestic freight. That 

is 600 million tons of cargo that are not moved on our already overburdened rail and highway system. 

The Inland Waterways System includes more than 12,000 miles 

of waterways that serve 41 States, including all States east of the 

Mississippi River. The Corps operates 238 lock chambers at 192 

sites. Nearly 140 of these locks have been in operation more than 

50 years. This means that more than one-half of the lock chambers 

that are vital parts of the Inland Waterways System have exceeded 

the economic life of the projects. 
12 

These locks, with associated dam structures, along with other 

waterway features provide other benefits for the Nation’s economy 

such as recreation, hydropower, water supply and in some cases 

flood control. These other project benefits are a direct result of the 

construction of these projects to fulfill their navigation purpose. 

These lock chambers are in various states of deterioration. A 

properly funded maintenance program can stave off the inevitable 

effects of this deterioration. However, it has been a very long time 

since the Corps budget could be considered adequate to properly 

fund maintenance of these structures. Inevitably, these structures 

must be modernized or replaced, depending on the deterioration, if 

they are to continue to serve the purpose for which they were originally constructed. 

Current law provides that maintenance of these structures is 

funded from the general fund of the Treasury. This funding is intended to cover routine maintenance of the structures that maintain the functionality of the projects. Repairs are becoming more 

frequent, extensive and costly. Scheduled and unscheduled lock closures for maintenance purposes have almost doubled in the last 10 

years. 

Whenever improvements to the functionality of the project are 

considered for implementation they are generally cost shared in the 

Construction, General account. These improvements can include a 

major overhaul of the mechanisms that operate the locks to improvements to the foundation or other major structural elements to 

a complete replacement of an antiquated lock facility. These major 

rehabilitations or new construction are cost shared. Half comes 

from the General Treasury and half comes from the IWTF. 

The IWTF is funded through a 20-cent-per-gallon tax on fuel 

used to transit the Inland Waterways System. This tax has remained 20 cents-per-gallon since 1995. Just adjusting the tax for 

inflation would make the fuel tax 30 cents per gallon to provide 

equivalent revenues to what was produced by the tax in 1995. It 

is estimated that more than $340,000,000 has been lost to the 

IWTF since 1996 because this tax has not been adjusted for inflation. 

However, it is clear that construction costs have risen much faster than revenues available in the IWTF even if they had been adjusted for inflation. Lengthening of project construction schedules 

due to inadequate funding has caused project costs to increase, but 

costs have also increased due to other unknown factors. 

The Olmsted lock and dam replacement project is a case in point. 

This one lock and dam is intended to replace the outdated Locks 

and Dams 52 and 53 on the lower Ohio River. The project was authorized for construction in 1988 for a cost of $775,000,000. Construction was initiated in 1992 and nearly $1,500,000,000 have 

been appropriated towards construction since that time. The twin 

1,200-foot long lock chambers are complete. 

The administration’s budget request indicates that the cost of 

this single large project will have to be increased to $2,918,000,000, 

a nearly $900,000,000 increase since the last estimate reported to 

Congress. The Corps says the cost increase is due to unforeseen 

challenges in the selected method of construction for the dam section of the project. 
13 

Any cost increase of this magnitude is of great concern to this 

Committee. However, this cost increase coupled with an already inadequate funding source in the IWTF is a recipe for disaster. The 

IWTF is essentially limited to incurring no more costs than the revenues that are brought in during a given year. In recent years that 

has limited work on the Inland Waterways System to about 

$170,000,000 annually. The current construction of Olmsted consumed 95 percent or more of the revenues available in the IWTF 

for the last several years. With this new cost estimate, that trend 

will likely continue for another decade. 

Abandoning the Olmsted project is not a viable option because 

Locks and Dams 52 and 53 still would have to be replaced, not to 

mention the $1,500,000,000 that has been invested in completing 

the two replacement lock chambers at Olmsted. Replacement costs 

of the two existing structures could exceed $3,000,000,000. This 

would be an even more expensive option than completing the work 

on Olmsted. The Committee understands that the Corps is examining all options to reduce remaining construction costs including 

changing the method of construction for the navigation pass in the 

dam section. The Corps should make every effort to expedite the 

construction schedule for this project and reduce any future cost 

growth. 

With all of the work needed to modernize our Inland Waterways 

System, this funding situation for the inland waterways is intolerable. To make the type of progress necessary to modernize this system in a reasonable period of time, a new financing model must be 

developed and implemented. Simply increasing the fuel tax will not 

supply the necessary revenues without a massive increase that 

would lead to disruptions on the system. A new financing mechanism must be considered, that not only provides the necessary revenues, but has an inflation adjustment factor built into the financing system. 

The HMTF tax offers an instructive model to consider for the 

IWTF. This tax is based on the value of the imports that transit 

specific harbors and waterways. The fees are collected by the customs department and deposited into the HMTF to be utilized for 

the maintenance of these waterways. This tax burden is shared by 

all who utilize these imported items, whereas the Inland Waterways Tax is only contributed based on the tax collected from the 

fuel used by vessels transporting cargo on the Inland Waterways 

System. 

It should be noted that the model used for the HMTF provided 

the bulk of all Federal revenue from 1790 until the eve of World 

War I, financing most Government operations. This seems an inherently fair way to collect revenue to finance waterways utilized 

to transport goods and materials that benefit the national economy. 

Corps projects are justified based on benefits to the national economy, so as the Nation benefits, the Nation should contribute towards the recapitalization of these assets. 

The Inland Waterways System is far too important to allow it to 

continue to languish with inadequate funding and crumbling infrastructure. The Committee has been patiently waiting for six budget 

cycles for a solution to these problems from the administration and 
14 

the appropriate congressional committees. Since that has not happened, the Committee has decided to take action on its own. 

For fiscal year 2013, the Committee has included legislative language directing that no more than 25 percent of the costs for 

Olmsted Lock and Dam should be drawn from the IWTF. This action frees up $36,000,000 in IWTF revenues. When combined with 

$36,000,000 from the General Treasury $72,000,000 will be available to be expended on other portions of the Inland Waterways System. These funds are included in the Construction, General account 

under additional funding for ongoing work. The Corps should propose IWTF-eligible projects as a part of their work plan for these 

funds based on the criteria that is found in that section of the report. 

This action was not taken lightly by the Committee. It is a recognition that something has got to change. It should not be looked 

at as a permanent solution. This is a 1-year change in the proportionality of the IWTF/General Treasury split for fiscal year 2013. 

It does not change the ultimate cost sharing for Olmsted. It only 

delays the inevitable day of reckoning when the costs for Olmsted 

will have to be brought back into the proper 50/50 balance. Legislation must be proposed and enacted to ensure that sufficient funding is available to ensure that this transportation infrastructure 

will continue to function as designed providing benefits to the national economy. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR INLAND WATERWAYS

The administration segregates the Inland Waterways System 

into at least two parts for budgeting purposes. Those that are designated as ‘‘low use’’ are given considerably lower budget priority 

for maintenance dollars than the remainder of the system. While 

these ‘‘low use’’ waterways may not have a significant impact on 

the national economy, they exert a tremendous influence on local 

and regional economies. 

When these projects were analyzed for implementation, the 

maintenance costs for the project’s 50-year economic life was calculated as a part of the benefit to cost ratio. One would assume 

that if the project were constructed, that the project’s benefits to 

the national economy had to exceed the costs (including the maintenance costs) to the national economy. Therefore the budget criterion currently being utilized to determine funding for these 

projects has nothing to do with the actual economics of the project. 

It is a judgment based solely on the tonnage moved. No consideration is given to the economics of whether the project benefits exceed the project costs even though the benefit to cost ratio is the 

rationale of choice behind other administration funding decisions in 

the budget request. 

The ‘‘low use’’ waterways move more than 50 million tons annually. That obviously pales in comparison to the roughly 550 million 

tons moved on the ‘‘high use’’ waterways. However, these 50 million tons of cargo would still have to be moved somehow, if they 

are not moved by water transportation. The only other candidates 

are truck and rail. It would require 2 million trucks or 455,000 rail 

cars to move the same amount of cargo that can be moved on 

33,500 barges. The shipping costs to the national economy to move 
15 

the same commodities to the same destinations would likely increase by at least $500,000,000 by rail or $1,500,000,000 by truck. 

The costs cited do not even begin to include the costs to the economy of the increased pollution, the likely increase in transportation 

fatalities or other costs that are incurred. If maintenance of all 

‘‘low use’’ projects were fully funded, the Corps budget would be increased by less than $200,000,000. The Committee urges the administration to reconsider this short-sighted budgetary decision in 

future budget submissions. Shortchanging maintenance for these 

projects seems to be ‘‘pennywise but pound foolish.’’ 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

Available revenue from the 0.125 percent tax on the value of im- ports at designated harbors provides roughly $1,500,000,000 annually to this fund. These revenues can be utilized for maintenance 

on more than 1,500 ports, harbors and waterways. The fiscal year 

2013 budget proposes $848,000,000 for maintenance of commercial 

waterways and ports to be appropriated from the General Treasury 

and ultimately reimbursed from the HMTF. This is down 

$43,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted bill. This imbalance 

between receipts and appropriations has led to a surplus in the 

HMTF of some $6,000,000,000. 

LEVEE SAFETY

One positive outcome from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina was 

that the public became more aware of the levees that protect their 

communities. This new awareness resulted in an examination of 

the conditions of these projects. Concurrent with this new awareness was the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 

map modernization program for flood insurance rate maps. With 

this remapping came the issue of certification of existing levees and 

the need to determine how safe these levees are. All of these factors have combined to cause a great deal of uncertainty. 

While the Committee would like to believe that engineered structures will never fail, the reality is that all engineered structures 

have the potential for failure if the right set of circumstances happen at the right time. Risk is inherent in any man-made structure 

and the Corps is charged with balancing that risk with the costs 

of the risk reduction measures. The cost for risk-free protection is 

more than the Nation has been willing to consider for any project. 

There are always trade-offs. This is especially true with flood control structures. There is always a larger flood, or an unknown or 

unaccounted for failure mode that can cause the structure to fail. 

The Committee looks to the Corps to propose and build structures 

to protect people based on the risks that they may face and to communicate the residual risk that people protected by these structure 

still face. It should be understood that while the structures mitigate risk, they do not eliminate it. 

The Committee fully supports the Corps’ efforts on levee safety. 

However, the Committee remains concerned that the costs to repair 

levees may be overwhelming to local interests. The Committee is 

not suggesting that the Corps should back away from its safety culture, only that there should be checks and balances to ensure that 

recommendations are not blindly made in the name of safety with-
16 

out determining if the recommendations actually provide cost effective safety improvements. The Committee encourages the Corps 

when working with communities on levee issues to be cognizant of 

the costs for proposed fixes and the community’s ability to fund the 

repairs. 

The Committee notes that the role of the Corps in assisting communities in developing data required for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program continues to be unresolved despite 

several years of dialogue between the Corps and FEMA. The Committee therefore directs the Corps to report within 30 days of enactment of this act on the status of its joint task force with FEMA 

to improve flood maps by leveraging existing Federal resources and 

procedures to develop data on the actual level of protection provided by flood control structures. 

The Committee remains concerned about what it believes is an 

overly broad reading of the definition of levees provided in section 

9002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The Committee understands that the National Committee on Levee Safety 

[NCLS] has recommended two main exclusions in its definitions: 

one for structures of limited height and limited risks as well as one 

for canal structures already covered under a safety program. These 

exclusions appear to cover most of the areas of concern. While the 

Committee understands that the recommendations of the NCLS 

are not actionable or even considered as standards or a national 

definition under current legislation, future legislation for a National Levee Safety Program will likely be largely developed from 

the recommendations of the NCLS. Therefore the Committee 

strongly urges the NCLS to include these exclusions in any recommendations that are made towards any type of National Levee 

Safety Program. 

LEVEE VEGETATION

The Committee is aware of the Corps’ updated draft policy regarding the consideration of vegetation variances for levees, and 

appreciates the work of Corps Districts and Divisions in working 

with affected levee sponsors and systems. The Committee is aware 

that the Engineer Research and Development Center completed an 

initial research effort to advance the Corps’ knowledge and understanding of the effects of woody vegetation on levees which indicated that minimal data exists on the scientific relationship between woody vegetation and levees. The Committee urges the 

Corps to continue to conduct additional scientific research on this 

topic. The Committee strongly encourages the Corps to take seriously its requirements under the Endangered Species Act and in 

meeting tribal treaty obligations, and to clarify how it will apply 

those considerations in the final vegetation variance policy. 

PLANNING PROGRAM

The Committee is pleased that the Corps continues to review its 

planning program and is trying to make it more responsive to the 

local sponsors and Congress. The Committee is supportive of the 

Corps’ announced 3–3–3 concept to reduce the maximum level of 

cost of completing a feasibility study to 3 years and the sum spent 

to $3,000,000. While better, faster and cheaper sounds desirable, in 
17 

the Committee’s experience only 2 out of those 3 items ultimately 

get delivered. In the pursuit of the 3–3–3 plan the Committee 

would caution the Corps that transferring tasks and costs to either 

the preconstruction engineering and design phase or the construction phase of the project is not really a solution—it just repackages 

the problem. 

The Committee remains concerned about the inconsistent nature 

of the planning process across the Corps. While shortening the 

planning process to 3 years is a laudable goal, the Committee recognizes that some timeframes within the planning process are statutory and cannot be shortened and some studies require a more indepth look. Items such as determining the future without project 

conditions and determining the array of alternatives that should be 

considered require careful evaluation. The bedrock of any Corps 

study remains these assumptions that are made at the beginning 

of the planning process. If they are given short shrift, then the recommendations of the planning study will be suspect. 

The Committee urges the Corps to move forward to implement 

the proposal by providing Corps District Offices with specific guidance regarding all feasibility studies including narrowing of scope, 

use of older data, limiting economic analysis when it is clear that 

the cost benefit criteria will clearly be met and how review processes can be accelerated or modified and other methods that may 

be used to allow all or almost all feasibility studies to meet the 

$3,000,000 and 3-year requirements. In addition, this guidance 

should provide for exceptions to the 3–3–3 plan, where appropriate. 

This guidance should include feasibility studies undertaken at local 

sponsor’s costs that are or will be undertaken with the intent of 

meeting Corps requirements. 

There are certain times when speed is truly essential. One such 

case is when an area with a flood control system that currently is 

certified to meet the 100-year standard has a change in estimates 

of river flow conditions. In such a case the communities need to act 

to make improvements quickly to minimize the time they may be 

found out of compliance with the 100-year standard. In such cases, 

where speed is of the essence additional flexibility regarding the requirements should be considered. 

What is clear is that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work 

due to the great variations in problems and needs throughout the 

country. More consistency as to how these problems and needs are 

evaluated should be the goal. The importance of these study reports cannot be overstated. They are the basis from which all of the 

Corps’ work is derived and Congress depends heavily on these 

planning reports to inform the decisionmaking process for authorizing and funding these infrastructure investments. The Committee 

will continue to monitor the progress of improving the consistency 

of the planning process. 

CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING

The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the 

Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the Com-
18 

mittee realizes that many factors outside the Corps’ control may 

dictate the progress of any given project or study. 

The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation provided in the Fiscal Year 2013 Energy and Water Development Act. 

NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

The Committee is including the following new starts proposed in 

the administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2013: Cano Martin Pen ̃ a, Puerto Rico; Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Delaware, and the District of 

Columbia; Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River), 

California; Louisiana Coastal Comprehensive Study; Houston Ship 

Channel, Texas; Hamilton City, California Flood Protection and 

Ecosystem Restoration; Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana; and 

Lower Colorado River Basin, Onion Creek, Texas. 

In addition, the Secretary is directed to propose a single group 

of new starts to the House and Senate Appropriation Committees 

within 45 days of enactment of this act as a part of the work plan. 

The new starts shall consist of five new study starts and three new 

construction starts. The majority of the benefits of the selected new 

starts must be derived from navigation, storm damage reduction or 

flood control mission areas of the Corps. The Committee is recommending this new start proposal to provide some balance to the 

predominantly ecosystem restoration new starts proposed in the 

administration’s budget request. By allowing the administration to 

select these additional new start studies and projects and directing 

that they come from the navigation and flood control mission areas 

of the Corps the Committee is attempting to ensure that the Corps’ 

future programs will continue to balance the various missions of 

the Corps. 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE

Savings and slippage [S&S] is a budgetary term that recognizes 

that nothing ever goes completely as planned. As Corps budgets 

are initiated some 22 months before they are presented to Congress 

a myriad of changes occur between this initial budget submission 

and when funds are actually appropriated. Projects speed up and 

slow down for a number of reasons. Hazardous wastes or a cultural 

resources site is discovered in the project right-of-way; a local sponsor may not have its cost share in-place; additional alternatives 

may need to be examined in a study; studies or even projects are 

terminated. All of these things lead to uncertainties which impact 

Corps’ budgets. 

When viewed in the historical context of annual Corps spending 

rates, reasonable percentages of S&S make sense as a way to accommodate additional projects needs, even if funding is insufficient 

and has been utilized by the Committee for the four major accounts. The Committee directs that the S&S amount in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly across all projects within the 

subaccounts. Upon applying the S&S amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen conditions. 
19 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous with 

earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the Corps of 

Engineers where the majority of the budget request is based on individual line item studies and projects. Due to this ongoing debate, 

the Committee has voluntarily refused all congressionally directed 

spending requests for fiscal year 2013. That means that the administration has total discretion as to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be spent as it relates to individual studies 

and projects. The Committee has retained the traditional tables for 

each of the four major accounts delineating the 914 line items requested by the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in the administration’s budget request, the Committee has also 

inserted additional line item funding under the nationwide heading 

for specific categories of studies or projects that the Committee 

feels are underrepresented in the administration’s budget request. 

The Corps has discretion within the guidelines provided in each account as to which line items this additional funding will be applied 

to. The Committee has not included any congressionally directed 

spending as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate. 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $125,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 102,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 125,000,000 

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the environmental 

and social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource problems; and for preconstruction engineering and design 

work, data collection, and interagency coordination and research 

activities. 

The planning program is the entry point for Federal involvement 

in solutions to the Nation’s water resource problems and needs. 

Unfortunately, the General Investigations [GI] account amount 

proposed in the budget is generally the same as what has been proposed in previous budgets. Nationwide studies and programs consume almost one-half of the administration’s GI request. This 

budget asserts that the Nation should concentrate scarce resources 

on completing studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies. 

The Committee has provided for a balanced planning program for 

fiscal year 2013 with ten new study starts—five from the budget 

request and an additional five to be selected based on the Corps’ 

prioritization process and included as a part of the General Investigations work plan. 

The first column in the table that follows represents the reconnaissance phase of the planning process. These studies determine 

if there is a Federal interest in a water resource problem or need 

and if there is a cost sharing sponsor willing to move forward with 

the study. The next column represents the feasibility phase of the 

study. These detailed cost-shared studies determine the selected alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction. The 

third column represents the preconstruction engineering and de-
20 

sign phase. These detailed cost-shared designs are prepared while 

the project recommended to Congress is awaiting authorization for 

construction. 

The Committee believes that by segregating the table in this 

manner, more attention can be focused on the various study 

phases, and a more balanced planning program can be developed 

by the administration. As the last two columns are generally cost 

shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost-sharing sponsors 

to be a part of the Federal planning process. By the same token, 

it also shows the level of commitment of the Federal Government 

to these cost-sharing sponsors. 

The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance 

are shown on the following table: 
21 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED 

ALASKA 

ALASKA REGIONAL PORTS, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK ................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................

ARKANSAS 

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA ......................................................................................................................... ................ 800 ................ ................ 800 ................

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA ........................................................................................................................................ ................ 900 ................ ................ 900 ................LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ....................................................................................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA ....................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 420 ................ ................ 420 ................SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY, CA ............................................................................................................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA ....................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,015 ................ ................ 1,015 ................SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA ..................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 216 ................ ................ 216 ................SOLANA BEACH, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 188 ................ ................ 188 ................SUTTER COUNTY, CA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 988 ................ ................ 988 ................UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA ......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 541 ................ ................ 541 ................YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................

COLORADO 

CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO ................................................................................................................... ................ 67 ................ ................ 67 ................

FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,400 ................ ................ 1,400 ................MILE POINT, FL .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 748 ................ ................ 748 

GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 2,800 ................ ................ ................

HAWAII 

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI ................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................
22 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED 

ILLINOIS 

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II) .................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL ........................................................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES–MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQUIFIER ........................................................................................................... ................ 3,000 ................ ................ 3,000 ................

IOWA 

HUMBOLDT, IA ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 230 ................ ................ 230 ................

KANSAS 

TOPEKA, KS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 431 ................ ................ 431 UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS ................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO RIVER SHORELINE, PADUCAH, KY ............................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 

LOUISIANA 

CALCASIEU LOCK, LA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 750 ................ ................ 750 ................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LA .................................................................................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .............................................................................................................................. ................ 3,917 5,447 ................ 3,917 5,447 

MARYLAND 

ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD .............................................................................................................. ................ 250 ................ ................ 250 ................ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY ............................................................................................................... ................ 250 ................ ................ 250 ................CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA, AND VA ........................................................................................................................... 250 ................ ................ 250 ................ ................

MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON HARBOR DEEP DRAFT INVESTIGATION, MA ......................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 1,800 ................ ................ 1,800

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN AND SD (MINNESOTA RIVER) ...................................................................................................... ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................
23 

MISSOURI 

KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS ............................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO ................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460–471, MO ................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 

MONTANA 

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT ............................................................................................................................................................... ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH AND MA ...................................................................................................................................... ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

NEW JERSEY 

DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ ............................................................................................................................................................ ................ 290 ................ ................ 290 ................HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ ....................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ ................................................................................................................................. ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 ................PASSAIC RIVER MAINSTEM, NJ .......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ................RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ .................................................................................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................

NEW MEXICO 

RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO, AND TX .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................

NEW YORK 

HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ ........................................................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY ..................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, LIVINGSTONE MANOR, NY ................................................................................................................... ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, BYRAM RIVER BASIN, NY AND CT ............................................................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

NORTH CAROLINA 

BOGUE BANKS, NC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 445 ................ ................ 445 ................CURRITUCK SOUND, NC ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 358 ................ ................ 358 ................NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC ................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 450 ................ ................ 450 SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC .................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 225 ................ ................ 225 WILMINGTON HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, NC ...................................................................................................................................................... ................ 250 ................ ................ 250 ................

NORTH DAKOTA 

FARGO, ND—MOORHEAD, MN METRO .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 5,000 ................ ................ 5,000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD, AND MANITOBA, CANADA ..................................................................................................... ................ 433 ................ ................ 433 ................

OREGON 

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA ................................................................................................................. ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................
24 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED 

WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA ............................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR ............................................................................................................................................................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR ....................................................................................................................................... ................ 80 500 ................ 80 500 WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR ......................................................................................................................................... ................ 180 200 ................ 180 200 

PENNSYLVANIA 

SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, WISSAHICKON CREEK BASIN, PA ........................................................................................................................... ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA ................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ................

PUERTO RICO 

CAN

 ̃

O MARTIN PEN

 ̃

A, PR .................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................

SOUTH CAROLINA 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 3,549 ................ ................ 3,549 ................EDISTO ISLAND, SC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 328 ................ ................ 328 ................

TEXAS 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX ................................................................................................................................... ................ 726 ................ ................ 726 ................DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX ..................................................................................................................................... ................ 700 ................ ................ 700 ................GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX .......................................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX ................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 425 ................ ................ 425 ................NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 650 ................ ................ 650 ................SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

VIRGINIA 

JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION 216) .................................................................................................................. ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 ................LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA ........................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, VA ............................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 WILLOUGHBY SPIT AND VICINITY, NORFOLK, VA ............................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 225 ................ ................ 225 

WASHINGTON 

MOUNT SAINT HELENS, WA ................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 225 ................ ................ 225 ................
25 

PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA .................................................................................................................... ................ 850 ................ ................ 850 ................

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ....................................................................................................................................................... 450 31,771 20,726 450 31,771 17,926 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2,000 ................FLOOD CONTROL ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 9,000 ................SHORE PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 5,000 

NAVIGATION ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 3,000 ................

COASTAL AND DEEP-DRAFT ...................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 6,000 ................INLAND ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 4,000 ................SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE ......................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 3,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ......................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 2,000 ................

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 2,000 ................REMOTE, COASTAL, OR SMALL WATERSHED ............................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 3,000 ................

COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES: 

ACCESS TO WATER DATA .......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 750 ................ ................ 750 COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................................. ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 

OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS: 

CALFED ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 ................COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE AGENCIES .................................................................................................................... ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................GULF OF MEXICO ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................................... ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................................... ................ 955 ................ ................ 955 ................INVENTORY OF DAMS ................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................LAKE TAHOE .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................PACIFIC NW FOREST CASE ....................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 10 ................ ................ 10 ................SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,350 ................ ................ 1,350 ................FERC LICENSING ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 

PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 4,000 ................ ................ 4,300 ................COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA: 

AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI-CADD ...................................................................................................................... ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................................... ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ............................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 220 ................ ................ 220 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................... ................ 9,500 ................ ................ 9,500 HYDROLOGIC STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 250 ................ ................ 250 INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 
26 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED 

PRECIPITATION STUDIES ........................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 225 ................ ................ 225 REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT .......................................................................................................... ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS .............................................................................................................................. ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 STREAM GAGING ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 550 ................ ................ 550 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 950 ................ ................ 950 ................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 16,143 ................ ................ 16,143 ................OTHER—MISCELLANEOUS: 

INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................................... ................ 2,850 ................ ................ 2,850 NATIONAL SHORELINE ............................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 675 ................ ................ 675 PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 4,000 ................ ................ 4,000 TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY ................................................................................................................................................... ................ 2,000 ................ ................ ................ ................

SUBTOTAL ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 49,053 ................ ................ 86,353 ................

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ¥11,500 ................

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 450 80,824 20,726 450 106,624 17,926 GRAND TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 102,000 ..................................... 125,000 
27 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The Committee has not 

funded this item in the GI account as recommended by the administration. The Committee has transferred the budget request to the 

Construction, General account where the Committee has funded it 

every year since fiscal year 2009. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The fiscal year 2013 

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

be suspended under the limits of the budget request. These studies 

could lead to projects with significant economic benefits, particularly by increasing national competitiveness through marine transportation improvements and by avoiding damages caused by flooding and coastal storms. The Committee recommends additional 

funds to continue ongoing studies. None of these funds may be used 

for any item where funding was specifically denied. While this additional funding is shown in the feasibility column, the Corps 

should utilize these funds in any applicable phase of work. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that either was not included 

in the administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. 

Ongoing studies that are actively progressing and can utilize the 

funding in a timely manner are eligible for these additional funds. 

The five new study starts directed as part of the work plan shall 

be funded from the appropriate additional funding line item. It 

should be understood that the Committee intends that there be 

only 10 new study starts in fiscal year 2013 owing to current and 

anticipated future budget constraints. Funding associated with 

each category may be allocated to any eligible study within that 

category; funding associated with each subcategory may be allocated only to eligible studies within that subcategory. The list of 

subcategories is not meant to be exhaustive. The Committee directs 

that priority in allocating these funds be given to funding the five 

new starts directed by the Committee, completing or accelerating 

ongoing studies which 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. 

Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall provide 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a work 

plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed and in 

which phase the work is to be accomplished. The Committee directs 

that a listing should accompany the work plan showing all the ongoing studies that were considered eligible and could have used 

funding for fiscal year 2013 and the reasons why these items were 

considered as being less competitive for inclusion in the work plan. 

Water Resources Priorities Study.—No funding is included for 

this new item. 

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $1,694,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,471,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,700,000,000 

This appropriation includes funds for construction, major rehabilitation and related activities for water resources development 

projects having navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, 
28 

water supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other 

attendant benefits to the Nation. The construction and major rehabilitation for designated projects for inland and costal waterways 

will derive one-half of the funding from the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund. Funds to be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund will be applied to cover the Federal share of the 

Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program. 

The administration request for the Construction, General account 

is $1,471,000,000, a decrease of $223,000,000 from the fiscal year 

2012 enacted amount. By the Committee’s estimate, less than 60 

percent of the needed funding is available in this account. Construction will slip due to constrained funding and benefits to the 

national economy will be deferred. As the Committee has noted 

over the last 7 years the funding proposed for this account appears 

to be ‘‘pennywise and pound foolish.’’ Lack of investment in this infrastructure will inevitably lead to another Katrina-style disaster 

somewhere in the Nation, whether it is a catastrophic failure on 

the Inland Waterways System or overwhelmed, incomplete or damaged flood control or shore protection infrastructure. When that 

failure occurs, we will expend billions trying to restore or accelerate 

the construction of the infrastructure that failed all the while lamenting how this could have been allowed to happen. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,700,000,000 in new 

budget authority for this account. The Committee recognizes that 

this is considerably less than the needs in the program but is the 

best that can be accomplished in this constrained fiscal environment. 

The Committee has provided for six new construction starts in 

fiscal year 2013—three new construction starts proposed in the 

budget request and three to be selected based on the Corps’ 

prioritization process and included as a part of the Construction, 

General work plan. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate Committee recommendation 

CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA ..................................................... 6,400 6,400 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA ...................................... 86,700 86,700 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA ..................................................... 5,100 5,100 

HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA ................................................................ 2,200 2,200 

HAMILTON CITY, CA ................................................................................................................. 7,500 7,500 

NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA ........................................................................ 2,500 2,500 

OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................................................... 500 500 

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA .......................................................... 3,000 3,000 

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ........................................................................................... 7,200 7,200 

SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) ..................................................................... 3,000 3,000 

YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA ........................................................................................................... 1,800 1,800 

DELAWARE 

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES BEACH ........................................ 350 350 
29 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

FLORIDA 

BREVARD COUNTY, CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ......................................................................... 350 350 

DUVAL COUNTY, FL .................................................................................................................. 100 100 

FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL ......................................................................................................... 350 350 

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ................................................................. 153,000 153,000 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................... 3,195 3,195 

MANATEE COUNTY, FL ............................................................................................................. 100 100 

MARTIN COUNTY, FL ................................................................................................................ 350 350 

NASSAU COUNTY, FL ............................................................................................................... 350 350 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ..................................................................... 153,324 153,324 

ST. JOHN’S COUNTY, FL .......................................................................................................... 350 350 

TAMPA HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................................. 8,305 8,305 

GEORGIA 

LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA ...................................................................................... 30 30 

RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC ............................................................... 1,000 1,000 

SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, GA AND SC ............................................................... 8,817 8,817 

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ...................................................................................... ........................ 2,800 

TYBEE ISLAND, GA ................................................................................................................... 150 150 

ILLINOIS 

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) ............................................... 3,000 3,000 

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL ............................................. 24,500 24,500 

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL ........................................................................................................... 2,300 2,300 

EAST ST. LOUIS, IL .................................................................................................................. 1,290 1,290 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK AND DAM, IL (MAJOR REHAB) ................................... 3,600 3,600 

LOCK AND DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (MAJOR REHAB) ................................................. 850 850 

MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ............................................................................. 12,000 12,000 

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY ............................................................. 144,000 144,000 

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO ..................................................... 17,880 17,880 

WOOD RIVER LEVEE, DEFICIENCY CORRECTION AND RECONSTRUCTION ............................... 4,202 4,202 

IOWA 

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO ............................................... 90,000 90,000 

KANSAS 

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO ........................................................................................ 4,000 4,000 

KENTUCKY 

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY ........................................................................... 85,000 85,000 

LOUISIANA 

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................................................ 5,223 5,223 

J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 

LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) .............................................. 5,000 5,000 

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .................................................... 16,825 16,825 

MARYLAND 

ASSATEAGUE, MD .................................................................................................................... 1,200 1,200 

CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA .............................................................. 5,000 5,000 

POPLAR ISLAND, MD ................................................................................................................ 13,500 13,500 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MUDDY RIVER, MA .................................................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 

MISSOURI 

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO .............................................................................. 1,000 1,000 

KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS .................................................................................................... 7,734 7,734 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS ........................................... 7,938 7,938 

MONARCH—CHESTERFIELD, MO ............................................................................................. 2,340 2,340 

ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO ........................................................................................ 200 200 
30 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

NEW JERSEY 

BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR INLET, NJ ............................................................. 600 600 

CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ ........................................................................... 200 200 

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, AND DE ............................................................... 31,000 31,000 

GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ ................................................................. 7,000 7,000 

LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ .............................................................. 400 400 

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ ................................................ 1,000 1,000 

RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ .......................................................... 1,000 1,000 

NEW MEXICO 

RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, ......................................... 10,000 10,000 

SOUTHWEST VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, ALBUQUERQUE, NM ................................ 5,709 5,709 

NEW YORK 

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, NY .................................... 100 100 

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY .......................................................................... 5,550 5,550 

LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY ........................................................................................................ 500 500 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ ............................................................... 68,000 68,000 

NORTH CAROLINA 

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC ........................................................................................... 600 600 

WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, NC ................................................................ 200 200 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 7,200 7,200 

OHIO 

BOLIVAR DAM, OH (DAM SAFETY) ........................................................................................... 13,800 13,800 

DOVER DAM, MUSKINGUM RIVER, OH (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................. 1,750 1,750 

OKLAHOMA 

CANTON LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 

OREGON 

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA ............................................ 350 350 

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR .............................................................................................................. 194 194 

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA ....................................... 3,650 3,650 

PENNSYLVANIA 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 15,000 15,000 

LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3, AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ................................................... 36,650 36,650 

PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) ........................................................................ 1,500 1,500 

PUERTO RICO 

PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR ................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 

RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR .......................................................................................................... 14,250 14,250 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

FOLLY BEACH, SC .................................................................................................................... 400 400 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ............................................................................................................ 75,000 75,000 

TEXAS 

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................................................. 2,100 2,100 

LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN (WHARTON/ONION), TX ....................................................... 2,000 2,000 

SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................................................... 2,171 2,171 

VIRGINIA 

LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, VA ............................................. 2,075 2,075 

ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA ....................................................... 300 300 
31 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, AND ID ............................................................ 98,000 98,000 

DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA ............................................................................. 2,500 2,500 

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA .................................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 

LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA ............................................ 2,000 2,000 

MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ................................................................... 3,500 3,500 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ....................................................................................................... 750 750 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 10,000 10,000 

WISCONSIN 

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 7,000 7,000 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ............................................................................. 1,373,602 1,376,402 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ............................................................................... ........................ 30,000 

FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................................................ ........................ 50,000 

SHORE PROTECTION ....................................................................................................... ........................ 40,000 

NAVIGATION ............................................................................................................................. ........................ 30,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND PROJECTS ................................................................ ........................ 72,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES .............................................................................. ........................ 9,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ......................................................... ........................ 8,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS ............................................................... ........................ 40,000 

HYDROPOWER PROJECTS ............................................................................................... ........................ 9,000 

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ...................................................................................... ........................ 4,000 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT REQUIRING SPECIFIC: 

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ..................................................... 4,034 8,000 

BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTIONS 204) ......................................... 4,995 7,500 

EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION ............................................ ........................ 5,000 

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .................................................................. 4,978 7,500 

NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111) ........................................................ 4,806 6,000 

NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107) .......................................................................... ........................ 1,000 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT .......................... 5,249 7,500 

SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103) .............................................................................. ........................ 2,500 

DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ............................................ 47,750 47,750 

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION .................................................................................................. 23,726 20,226 

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE ........................................................ 60 60 

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ........................................................ 800 800 

ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106–457) .................................................. 1,000 1,000 

RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES .................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 

SUBTOTAL ................................................................................................................... 97,398 407,836 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .......................................................................................................... ........................ ¥84,238 

TOTAL ......................................................................................................................... 1,471,000 1,700,000 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The administration 

budget request for this item that was proposed in the GI account 

has been moved to this account where it has been funded since fiscal year 2009. 

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 recommends additional funds to continue ongoing 
32 

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. None of these funds shall be 

used for projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. Funding 

associated with each category may be allocated to any eligible 

project within that category; funding associated with each subcategory may be allocated only to eligible projects within that subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant to be exhaustive. 

Ongoing construction projects that are actively progressing and 

can utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for these additional funds. This includes periodic beach renourishments. The 

three new project starts directed as part of the work plan shall be 

funded from the appropriate additional funding line-item. The 

Committee intends only six new construction starts in fiscal year 

2013, the three proposed by the administration in the budget request and three additional new starts provided by the Committee 

but selected by the administration. Priority in allocating additional 

funding should consider the following: number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; the benefits of the funded work to the 

national economy; ability to obligate the funds allocated within the 

fiscal year, including consideration of the ability of the non-Federal 

sponsor to provide any required cost-share; ability to complete the 

project, separable element, or project phase within the funds allocated; for flood and storm damage reduction, population at risk and 

economic activity or public infrastructure at risk; and for navigation, number of jobs or level of economic activity to be supported 

by completion of the project, separable element, or project phase. 

A major factor to be considered for prioritizing inland waterway 

funding is the economic impact on the local, regional, and national 

economy if the project is not funded. In addition, priority should be 

given to discrete elements of work that can be completed within the 

funding provided in this line item. 

Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall provide 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a work 

plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed. The Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work plan showing all the ongoing construction projects that were considered eligible and could have used funding for fiscal year 2013 and the reasons why these items were considered as being less competitive for 

inclusion in the work plan. 

Continuing Authorities Program [CAP].—The Continuing Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific authorizing legislation) includes projects for flood control (section 205), 

emergency streambank and shoreline protection (section 14), beach 

erosion control (section 103), mitigation of shore damages (section 

111), navigation projects (section 107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic ecosystem restoration (section 206), beneficial 

uses of dredged material (section 204), and project modifications for 

improvement of the environment (section 1135). The Committee 

has chosen to fund eight of the nine sections of the CAP program 

rather than only the five sections proposed in the budget request. 

The Committee has not funded section 208 as it believes these 

projects can easily be accommodated under the authority of section 
33 

205. The Committee believes that CAP funds should be expended 

for the CAP sections for which they were appropriated and should 

be executed as quickly as possible. The Committee continues to believe that the various sections of the CAP program provide a useful 

tool for the Corps to undertake small localized projects without 

being encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization phases 

typical of most Corps projects. The Committee has included a total of $45,000,000 spread over 

the eight CAP sections for work in fiscal year 2013. The Committee 

urges the administration to execute the program laid out by the 

Committee and include funding for this program in future budgets. 

Continuing Authorities Program Direction.—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 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 

within 30 days of 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 
34 

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. 

Restoration of Abandoned Mines.—The Corps is directed to work 

closely with those Federal land management agencies, Western 

States and tribes with abandoned non-coal mine sites so that the 

greatest number of those sites presenting threats to public health 

and safety can be addressed in a cost-effective manner. 

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $252,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 234,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 253,000,000 

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation 

and maintenance activities associated with water resource projects 

located in the lower Mississippi River Valley from Cape Girardeau, 

Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

INVESTIGATIONS 

MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, TN ....................................... 100 100 

SUBTOTAL, INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................................... 100 100 

CONSTRUCTION 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ................................................... 46,133 46,133 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ............................................... 45,187 45,187 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ....................................................................... 1,650 1,650 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ......................................................................................................... 6,300 6,300 

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................... 99,270 99,270 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ................................................... 56,001 56,001 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................................................ 158 158 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................ 250 250 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR .......................................................................... 287 287 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR .......................................................................... 193 193 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ............................................... 8,452 8,452 

ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO ............................................................................................ 5,900 5,900 

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA ..................................................... 1,839 1,839 

WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ................................................................................................ 1,142 1,142 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................. 170 170 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................................................ 100 100 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ....................................................................... 1,738 1,738 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ......................................................................................................... 9,747 9,747 

BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA ........................................................................... 60 60 

BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ............................................................................... 46 46 
35 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

BONNET CARRE, LA ................................................................................................................. 2,195 2,195 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................................................ 997 997 

LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ....................................................................... 368 368 

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA .............................................................................................. 472 472 

OLD RIVER, LA ......................................................................................................................... 8,050 8,050 

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA .......................................................................... 2,414 2,414 

GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS ....................................................................................................... 23 23 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ............................................................................... 121 121 

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ........................................................................................................ 41 41 

YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ..................................................................................... 5,203 5,203

YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ........................................................................... 177 177 

YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ................................................................................................ 4,795 4,795 

YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS ............................................................................................ 788 788 

YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ......................................................................................... 5,222 5,222 

YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS ............................................................................................... 1,273 1,273 

YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ............................................................................................ 6,493 6,493 

YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ............................................................................................ 944 944

YAZOO BASIN, WILL M. WHITTINGTON AUXILARY CHANNEL, MS ............................................ 375 375 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ........................................................................ 511 511 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS .............................................................................................. 714 714 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ............................................................................... 200 200 

WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................... 4,064 4,064 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................................................ 80 80 

MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ............................................................................... 1,464 1,464 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................................. 133,067 133,067 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

DREDGING ....................................................................................................................... ........................ 5,000 

FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................................................ ........................ 10,000 

WATER SUPPLY AND RELATED AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ............................................... ........................ 10,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ..................................................................... ........................ 5,000 

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ............................................................................... 500 500 

MAPPING .................................................................................................................................. 1,063 1,063 

SUBTOTAL REMAINING ITEMS .................................................................................... 1,563 31,563 

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............................................................................. ........................ ¥11,000 

TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ............................................................... 234,000 253,000 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above the budget request to 

continue ongoing studies, projects or maintenance. The Committee 

recommends 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 primarily along the Mississippi 

River tributaries 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 any applicable phase of work. None of these funds 

may be used to start new projects or activities. 

The Committee directs that priority in allocating these funds be 

given to completing or accelerating ongoing work which will enhance the region and Nation’s economic development, job growth 

and international competitiveness, or is located in areas that have 
36 

suffered recent natural disasters. Within 45 days of enactment of 

this act, the Corps shall provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a work plan delineating how these funds 

are to be distributed. The Committee directs that a listing should 

accompany the work plan showing all the studies and construction 

projects that were considered eligible and could have used funding 

for fiscal year 2013 and the reasons why these items were considered as being less competitive for inclusion in the work plan. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $2,412,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 2,398,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,404,000,000 

This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and related activities at the water resources projects that the Corps operates and 

maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of dredging, repair, 

and operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in 

the various river and harbor, flood control, and water resources development acts. Related activities include aquatic plant control, 

monitoring of completed projects where appropriate, removal of 

sunken vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce statistics. 

Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory gets 

more expensive every year, however, it is consistently underfunded. 

If this trend continues, the Corps will not be able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its projects. The Committee is 

pleased that the budget request increases spending from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by $90,000,000 over the fiscal year 

2012 budget request, but by the Committee’s estimate, the estimate 

of $848,000,000 that is anticipated to be expended from the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund in fiscal year 2013 is $43,000,000 below 

the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. 

The Committee has maintained its tradition of supporting what 

the budget request terms as ‘‘low use harbors and waterways.’’ The 

Committee recognizes the importance of these facilities and will 

continue to provide funding for them. The Committee understands 

that the O&M budget fluctuates from year to year due to periodic 

maintenance dredging requirements, however, the general trend 

should be for this budget to increase. Nearly 75 percent of the 

O&M budget consists of labor and dredging costs in most years. 

Labor costs rarely decrease for the Corps as it takes roughly the 

same amount of manpower to operate Corps projects on a yearly 

basis. That means that when the budget request is reduced, the 

only areas available to reduce are dredging and maintenance items. 

The Committee understands that the Corps is looking at a variety of ways to reduce costs for operation and maintenance [O&M] 

of projects—including reducing operations at locks and dams. The 

Committee believes that in the current fiscal environment it is appropriate to look at all manner of cost-savings ideas, but that any 

options that involve major changes should be discussed with the 

Committee before they appear in an administration budget request. 

The Corps is to be commended for managing to keep as much of 

their infrastructure operable as they have with the O&M budgets 

that have been put forward and enacted. The Committee urges the 
37 

administration to commit to a more realistic budget for O&M in future fiscal years. 

The budget request and the Committee recommendation are 

shown on the following table: 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

ALABAMA 

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL .......................................................... 246 246 

ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL ..................................................................................................... 14,926 14,926 

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ...................................................................... 20,971 20,971 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ...................................................................................... 5,608 5,608

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ................................................................................ 80 80 

MOBILE HARBOR, AL ............................................................................................................... 30,071 30,071 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ......................................................................................... 100 100 

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL ............................................. 1,901 1,901 

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS .................................................................. 22,852 22,852 

WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA .................................................................. 8,042 8,042 

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................... 13,930 13,930 

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ......................................................................................................... 3,328 3,328 

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 

HOMER HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................... 467 467 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ................................................................................ 210 210 

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................... 454 454 

NOME HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................................. 1,151 1,151 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ......................................................................................... 561 561 

ARIZONA 

ALAMO LAKE, AZ ...................................................................................................................... 1,621 1,621 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ................................................................................ 101 101 

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ .......................................................................................................... 1,236 1,236 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ............................................................................ 157 157 

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ...................................................................................................... 297 297 

ARKANSAS 

BEAVER LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................... 5,929 5,929 

BLAKELY MOUNTAIN DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ..................................................................... 8,534 8,534 

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ...................................................................................................... 1,864 1,864 

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR .......................................................................................................... 6,672 6,672 

DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR .......................................................................................... 8,912 8,912 

DEGRAY LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................... 6,881 6,881 

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................. 1,870 1,870 

DIERKS LAKE, AR ..................................................................................................................... 1,567 1,567 

GILLHAM LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................. 1,463 1,463 

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................ 6,444 6,444 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................................................ 74 74 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................ 448 448 

MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............................................ 24,961 24,961 

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR ............................................................................................................... 2,680 2,680 

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ...................................................................................... 4,659 4,659 

NIMROD LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................... 2,020 2,020 

NORFORK LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................. 8,146 8,146 

OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ............................................................................................................ 13 13 

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA ........................................................................... 7,507 7,507 

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR .............................................................................. 5,188 5,188 

WHITE RIVER, AR ..................................................................................................................... 39 39 

YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ......................................................................................................... 3 3 

CALIFORNIA 

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA .......................................................................................................... 2,259 2,259 
38 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

BUCHANAN DAM, H.V. EASTMAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................. 1,919 1,919 

CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................. 4,500 4,500 

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ........................................................................ 3,624 3,624 

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ........................................................ 6,697 6,697 

FARMINGTON DAM, CA ............................................................................................................ 450 450 

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA ........................................................................................... 2,018 2,018 

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ......................................................................................... 1,905 1,905

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ................................................................................ 3,686 3,686 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................. 1,080 1,080 

LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA ............................................................................ 265 265 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA .......................................................................... 5,053 5,053 

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................................................................. 350 350 

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA .......................................................................................................... 331 331 

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA ....................................................................................................... 2,200 2,200 

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................................................. 3,971 3,971 

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA ............................................................... 1,806 1,806 

OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................ 17,200 17,200 

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 1,600 1,600 

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................ 3,218 3,218 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ......................................................................................... 1,707 1,707 

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 10,700 10,700 

SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................................................ 1,443 1,443 

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA ........................................... 1,382 1,382 

SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA ............................................................. 200 200 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ............................................................ 901 901 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................................................... 3,000 3,000 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................. 2,850 2,850 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA ....................................................................... 5,525 5,525 

SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA .................................................................... 2,500 2,500 

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA .................................................................................................. 3,988 3,988 

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................ 2,240 2,240 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ............................................................................ 1,587 1,587 

SUCCESS LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................. 2,328 2,328 

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ...................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA ........................................................................................ 2,069 2,069 

YUBA RIVER, CA ...................................................................................................................... 121 121 

COLORADO 

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO ........................................................................................................... 840 840 

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO ............................................................................................................... 1,445 1,445 

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO ....................................................................................................... 1,518 1,518 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO ............................................................................... 489 489 

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ................................................................................................ 2,315 2,315 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ............................................................................ 748 748 

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO ................................................................................................................. 2,012 2,012 

CONNECTICUT 

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................ 518 518 

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT .................................................................................................. 884 884 

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................... 415 415 

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................. 956 956 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ................................................................................ 267 267 

LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT ............................................................................................ 2,500 2,500 

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ................................................................................................ 595 595 

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................................ 438 438 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ......................................................................................... 1,050 1,050 

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ..................................................................................... 563 563 

THOMASTON DAM, CT .............................................................................................................. 783 783 

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................... 655 655 

DELAWARE 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE ................................................................................ 40 40 
39 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY .................................... 17,375 17,375 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ......................................................................................... 200 200 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ...................................................................................................... 4,305 4,305 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC ............................................................................... 25 25 

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................................... 875 875 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ........................................................................................ 25 25 

WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC ..................................................................................................... 25 25

FLORIDA 

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................... 4,700 4,700 

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL .................................................................................. 14,444 14,444

ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL AND AL ...................................................................... 1,600 1,600 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ................................................................................ 1,400 1,400 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................... 6,063 6,063 

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA ........................................ 6,936 6,936 

MIAMI HARBOR, FL .................................................................................................................. 4,334 4,334 

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL .................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................. 3,084 3,084 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ......................................................................................... 1,647 1,647 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL ....................................................................................... 3,250 3,250

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL ............................................................................. 22 22 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ..................................................................... 7,783 7,783 

TAMPA HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................................. 8,150 8,150 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL .......................................................................... 80 80 

GEORGIA 

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA .............................................................................................................. 7,301 7,301 

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL ............................................... 2,085 2,085 

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ....................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ......................................................................... 8,611 8,611 

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA ................................................................................................. 7,999 7,999 

HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC .................................................................................................. 9,903 9,903 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA ............................................... 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ................................................................................ 120 120 

J. STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC ................................................................................ 9,546 9,546 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA ......................................................................................... 189 189 

RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC ............................................................... 8,488 8,488 

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA .......................................................................................................... 22,039 22,039 

SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA ................................................................................. 90 90 

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL ............................................................................... 7,613 7,613 

HAWAII 

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI .................................................................................................. 238 238 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI ................................................................................. 685 685 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI .......................................................................................... 737 737 

IDAHO 

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ............................................................................................................ 1,260 1,260 

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID .................................................................................... 2,730 2,730 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID ................................................................................. 330 330 

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ............................................................................................................. 2,350 2,350 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ............................................................................. 546 546 

ILLINOIS 

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN ............................................................................. 3,709 3,709 

CARLYLE LAKE, IL .................................................................................................................... 5,462 5,462 

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL .............................................................................................................. 2,000 2,000 

CHICAGO RIVER, IL .................................................................................................................. 528 528 

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................................................................. 457 457 
40 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN .................................................................... 32,727 32,727 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN .................................................................... 1,832 1,832 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IL ................................................. 65 65 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................. 2,549 2,549 

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ........................................................................................... 1,902 1,902 

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL ............................................................................................... 1,025 1,025 

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ............................................................................................................. 5,412 5,412 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS ....................................... 56,758 56,758 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS ....................................... 25,464 25,464 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL .......................................................................................... 104 104 

REND LAKE, IL ......................................................................................................................... 5,487 5,487 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL .......................................................... 672 672 

INDIANA 

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN .............................................................................................................. 1,109 1,109 

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................. 176 176 

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................ 1,125 1,125 

CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN .................................................................................................... 1,250 1,250 

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................................... 10,915 10,915 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN ................................................................................. 992 992 

J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN ................................................................................................... 1,126 1,126 

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN .......................................................................................................... 1,780 1,780 

MONROE LAKE, IN ................................................................................................................... 1,194 1,194 

PATOKA LAKE, IN ..................................................................................................................... 1,089 1,089 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN .......................................................................................... 185 185 

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................... 1,091 1,091 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ......................................................... 138 138 

IOWA 

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA .............................................................................................................. 4,235 4,235 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA ................................................................................. 728 728 

MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO .................................................. 7,767 7,767 

RATHBUN LAKE, IA .................................................................................................................. 2,359 2,359 

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA .............................................................................. 4,579 4,579 

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ............................................................................................................. 5,489 5,489 

KANSAS 

CLINTON LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................... 2,257 2,257 

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................... 2,115 2,115 

EL DORADO LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................. 831 831 

ELK CITY LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 795 795 

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................. 1,429 1,429 

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................ 835 835 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ................................................................................ 984 984 

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ............................................................................ 1,251 1,251 

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS ............................................................................................................... 1,513 1,513 

MARION LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................... 2,578 2,578 

MELVERN LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................. 2,092 2,092 

MILFORD LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 2,113 2,113 

PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ................................................................................... 1,485 1,485

PERRY LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................................... 2,259 2,259 

POMONA LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................... 2,053 2,053 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ............................................................................ 150 150 

TORONTO LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 904 904 

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ......................................................................................................... 2,245 2,245 

WILSON LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................... 1,515 1,515 

KENTUCKY 

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN .................................................................... 9,594 9,594 

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................ 2,454 2,454 

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ......................................................................................................... 1,741 1,741 

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................... 1,763 1,763 
41 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................ 1,849 1,849 

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................ 947 947 

DEWEY LAKE, KY ..................................................................................................................... 2,279 2,279 

ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY .................................................................................... 13 13 

FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY AND IN ............................................................. 16 16 

FISHTRAP LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................. 2,023 2,023 

GRAYSON LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................. 1,554 1,554 

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY ........................................................................................... 2,104 2,104 

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................... 2,334 2,334 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................................................ 1,105 1,105 

KENTUCKY RIVER, KY .............................................................................................................. 10 10 

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................... 1,999 1,999 

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................... 1,194 1,194 

MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ..................................................................... 244 244 

NOLIN LAKE, KY ....................................................................................................................... 2,675 2,675 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, AND OH .............................................................. 34,665 34,665 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA, AND WV .......................................... 5,829 5,829 

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................. 1,224 1,224 

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 2,723 2,723 

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 1,198 1,198 

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY ........................................................................... 7,987 7,987 

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY .............................................................................................................. 1,528 1,528 

LOUISIANA 

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, LA ...................................... 8,547 8,547 

BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA ............................................................................................. 92 92 

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ............................................................................................. 1,041 1,041 

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA .................................................. 1,089 1,089 

BAYOU PIERRE, LA .................................................................................................................. 24 24 

BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA ........................................................................................... 15 15 

BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA ............................................................................. 17 17 

BAYOU TECHE, LA ................................................................................................................... 135 135 

CADDO LAKE, LA ...................................................................................................................... 216 216 

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................................................ 15,753 15,753 

FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ......................................................................................................... 1,695 1,695 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ...................................................................................... 19,929 19,929 

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA .............................................................................................. 990 990

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................................................ 1,002 1,002 

J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ................................................................................... 8,434 8,434 

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ............................................................................................. 17 17 

MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ..................................................................................................... 5 5

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA ........................................................................................................... 1,319 1,319 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA .......................................................................... 1,423 1,423 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO ............................................... 81,670 81,670 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ......................................................................................... 46 46 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA ....................................................................................... 200 200 

WALLACE LAKE, LA .................................................................................................................. 232 232 

WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA .......................................................................... 9 9 

WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DU LAC, LA ................................... 38 38 

MAINE 

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME .......................................................................................... 1,050 1,050 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME ............................................................................... 95 95 

PORTLAND HARBOR, ME .......................................................................................................... 13,000 13,000 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ........................................................................................ 750 750 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ........................................................ 20 20 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ............................................................ 15,757 15,757 

BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) .......................................................................... 325 325 

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV .................................................................................. 115 115 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD ............................................................................... 75 75 
42 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV ............................................................................... 1,724 1,724 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ........................................................................................ 450 450 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD ........................................................................... 62 62 

WICOMICO RIVER, MD ............................................................................................................. 1,500 1,500 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA ........................................................................................................... 646 646 

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA .............................................................................................................. 1,022 1,022 

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA .......................................................................................................... 599 599 

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ............................................................................................................. 8,694 8,694 

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ......................................................... 322 322 

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................... 285 285 

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ..................................................................................................... 523 523 

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ..................................................................................................... 607 607 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA ............................................................................... 306 306 

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ............................................................................................................ 750 750 

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................. 813 813 

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER ........................................ 365 365 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ........................................................................................ 1,200 1,200 

TULLY LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................................... 644 644 

WEST HILL DAM, MA ................................................................................................................ 690 690 

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................... 584 584 

MICHIGAN 

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI .......................................................................................... 170 170

DETROIT RIVER, MI .................................................................................................................. 5,814 5,814 

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................... 1,358 1,358 

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 668 668 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ................................................................................ 200 200 

KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ..................................................................................................... 37 37

MANISTEE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................... 541 541 

MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................... 611 611 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ......................................................................................... 670 670 

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................. 4,091 4,091 

SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................ 25 25 

ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................... 618 618 

ST. MARYS RIVER, MI .............................................................................................................. 26,766 26,766 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ......................................................... 2,653 2,653 

MINNESOTA 

BIGSTONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD .................................................................. 272 272 

DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI .............................................................................. 5,494 5,494 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN ............................................................................... 387 387 

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ..................................................................... 760 760 

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................................................................................... 275 275 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS ....................................... 49,549 49,549 

ORWELL LAKE, MN ................................................................................................................... 500 500 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ........................................................................................ 86 86 

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ..................................................................................................... 152 152 

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN .................................................... 3,686 3,686 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN ....................................................... 462 462 

TWO HARBORS, MN ................................................................................................................. 350 350 

MISSISSIPPI 

BILOXI HARBOR, MS ................................................................................................................ 1,805 1,805 

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS ............................................................................................... 1 1 

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS ....................................................................................... 258 258 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ............................................................................... 122 122 

MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................. 30 30 

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS .............................................................................................................. 1,568 1,568 

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ..................................................................................................... 8,785 8,785 

PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA ....................................................................................................... 145 145 
43 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ........................................................................................ 177 177 

ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... 11 11 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS ......................................................................... 125 125 

YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................................... 26 26 

MISSOURI 

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO .............................................................................................. 10 10 

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ......................................................... 6,266 6,266 

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO .......................................................................................................... 3,291 3,291 

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO ....................................................................... 7,834 7,834 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ............................................................................... 1,619 1,619 

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ............................................................................................... 1,154 1,154 

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................ 1,093 1,093 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS ........................................... 25,710 25,710 

NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO ..................................................................................................... 51 51

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO .................................................................................................. 2,170 2,170 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ........................................................................................ 14 14 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO ........................................................................... 854 854 

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................. 1,312 1,312 

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO ........................................................... 1 1 

STOCKTON LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................... 4,664 4,664 

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR ............................................................................................. 8,254 8,254 

MONTANA 

FT. PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ................................................................................................. 5,235 5,235 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT ............................................................................... 169 169 

LIBBY DAM, MT ....................................................................................................................... 1,718 1,718 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ............................................................................ 118 118 

NEBRASKA 

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD .................................................... 8,018 8,018 

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ..................................................................................................... 6,256 6,256 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ................................................................................ 554 554 

MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA .................................................... 81 81 

PAPILLION CREEK, NE ............................................................................................................. 778 778 

SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ...................................................................................... 1,025 1,025 

NEVADA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ................................................................................ 53 53 

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA ........................................................................................... 1,046 1,046 

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ............................................................................. 354 354 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

BLACKWATER DAM, NH ............................................................................................................ 799 799 

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ............................................................................................. 762 762 

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ...................................................................................................... 868 868 

HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH ............................................................................................. 1,343 1,343 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH ............................................................................... 61 61 

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ......................................................................................................... 943 943 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ........................................................................................ 275 275 

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ................................................................................................... 776 776 

NEW JERSEY 

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ............................................................................................................... 415 415 

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ .......................................................................................................... 395 395 

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ .......................................................................................... 15 15 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA, AND DE ........................................... 23,290 23,290 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ................................................................................ 242 242 

MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ ........................................................................................................... 300 300 

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ .......................................................... 450 450 

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ...................................................................... 587 587 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ......................................................................................... 1,610 1,610 
44 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ ....................................................................... 60 60 

RARITAN RIVER, NJ .................................................................................................................. 220 220 

SALEM RIVER, NJ ..................................................................................................................... 100 100 

SHARK RIVER, NJ ..................................................................................................................... 400 400 

NEW MEXICO 

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ................................................................................................................... 3,258 3,258 

COCHITI LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................... 5,256 5,256 

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................ 2,864 2,864 

GALISTEO DAM, NM ................................................................................................................. 882 882 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM ............................................................................... 759 759 

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM ....................................................................................................... 1,299 1,299 

RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM .................................. 2,503 2,503 

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM ........................................................................................... 1,519 1,519 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM ........................................................................... 547 547 

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ............................................................................................................ 916 916 

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM ............................................... 1,580 1,580 

NEW YORK 

ALMOND LAKE, NY ................................................................................................................... 635 635 

ARKPORT DAM, NY .................................................................................................................. 352 352 

BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY ........................................................................... 60 60 

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ......................................................... 1,335 1,335 

BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY ..................................................................................................... 60 60 

EAST RIVER, NY ....................................................................................................................... 150 150 

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY .................................................................................................... 100 100 

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY ........................................................................................................... 662 662 

FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY .............................................................................................. 100 100

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ................................................................................................... 4,500 4,500 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C) ...................................................................................................... 2,050 2,050 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ................................................................................ 1,171 1,171 

JAMAICA BAY, NY .................................................................................................................... 100 100 

LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................ 5 5 

MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY ....................................................................................................... 3,926 3,926 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY ........................................................................ 7,297 7,297 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY .......................................................................................................... 5,857 5,857 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) ............................................................... 9,236 9,236 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT) ...................................... 1,045 1,045 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ......................................................................................... 2,040 2,040 

ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY ....................................................................................................... 5 5 

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ........................................................ 686 686 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ........................................................ 579 579 

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY ....................................................................................................... 780 780 

NORTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC .............................................................................. 2,900 2,900 

B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ............................................................................... 1,679 1,679 

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC ........................................................................... 489 489 

FALLS LAKE, NC ....................................................................................................................... 1,782 1,782 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC ............................................................................... 261 261 

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC ........................................................................................... 1,365 1,365 

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ................................................................................................ 5,800 5,800 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ........................................................................................ 736 736 

ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC ....................................................................................................... 50 50 

SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 300 300 

W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ............................................................................ 3,209 3,209 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 16,409 16,409 

NORTH DAKOTA 

BOWMAN HALEY, ND ............................................................................................................... 214 214 

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND .................................................................................. 12,050 12,050

HOMME LAKE, ND .................................................................................................................... 296 296 
45 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND ............................................................................... 282 282 

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ............................................................................ 1,476 1,476 

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ................................................................................................................ 835 835 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ............................................................................ 120 120 

SOURIS RIVER, ND .................................................................................................................. 341 341 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ........................................................ 28 28 

OHIO 

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 1,424 1,424 

ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................ 1,810 1,810 

BERLIN LAKE, OH .................................................................................................................... 2,084 2,084 

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH ....................................................................................................... 1,698 1,698 

CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH ............................................................................................... 1,286 1,286 

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................ 8,959 8,959 

CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ......................................................................................................... 1,001 1,001 

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 1,468 1,468 

DELAWARE LAKE, OH ............................................................................................................... 1,471 1,471 

DILLON LAKE, OH ..................................................................................................................... 1,484 1,484 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH ............................................................................... 663 663 

MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ....................................................................... 37 37 

MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ..................................................................... 1,096 1,096 

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................................... 1,048 1,048 

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH ............................................................................................... 8,527 8,527 

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 467 467 

OHIO-MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH ................................................................................. 1,856 1,856 

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 1,357 1,357 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ........................................................................................ 305 305 

ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ........................................................................ 35 35 

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH .......................................................................................................... 983 983 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ........................................................ 244 244 

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH .............................................................................................................. 5,472 5,472 

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH ............................................................................................................ 796 796 

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................... 873 873 

WILLIAM H. HARSHA LAKE, OH ................................................................................................ 1,586 1,586 

OKLAHOMA 

ARCADIA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 521 521 

BIRCH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................... 809 809 

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK .......................................................................................................... 2,425 2,425 

CANTON LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................... 2,242 2,242 

COPAN LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 1,352 1,352 

EUFAULA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 5,494 5,494 

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 4,760 4,760 

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 1,086 1,086 

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ................................................................................................ 501 501 

HEYBURN LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 629 629 

HUGO LAKE, OK ....................................................................................................................... 1,716 1,716 

HULAH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................... 1,751 1,751 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ................................................................................ 155 155 

KAW LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................... 2,413 2,413 

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................ 13,468 13,468 

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK ............................................. 5,552 5,552 

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 5,100 5,100 

OPTIMA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................... 49 49 

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK ....................................................... 133 133 

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................. 1,053 1,053 

ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIR, OK ........................................................ 5,476 5,476 

SARDIS LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 3,801 3,801 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ............................................................................ 1,000 1,000 

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 2,012 2,012 

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK .................................................................................................... 5,055 5,055 

WAURIKA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 1,616 1,616 
46 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK ..................................................................................... 3,852 3,852 

WISTER LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................... 738 738 

OREGON 

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR .............................................................................................................. 937 937 

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................. 579 579 

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ............................................................................. 7,039 7,039 

COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER ........................................ 28,066 28,066 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA ...................................................................... 19,277 19,277 

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR .................................... 931 931 

COOS BAY, OR ......................................................................................................................... 5,843 5,843 

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ..................................................................................................... 1,266 1,266 

COUGAR LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 1,934 1,934 

DETROIT LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 1,008 1,008 

DORENA LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 1,040 1,040 

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................. 3,602 3,602 

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................ 1,791 1,791 

GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR .......................................................................................... 4,321 4,321 

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................... 1,257 1,257 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR ............................................... 20 20 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR ............................................................................... 590 590 

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ................................................................................. 4,329 4,329 

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ...................................................................................................... 2,168 2,168 

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................ 3,866 3,866 

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ................................................................................... 5,872 5,872 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ........................................................................................ 400 400 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ............................................................................ 98 98 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ........................................................ 9,695 9,695 

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ..................................................................... 110 110 

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR ....................................................................................................... 677 677 

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ............................................................................................. 2,780 2,780 

PENNSYLVANIA 

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ............................................................................................................ 4,317 4,317 

ALVIN R. BUSH DAM, PA ......................................................................................................... 747 747 

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA ............................................................................................... 351 351

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................. 1,570 1,570 

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................... 2,688 2,688 

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA ................................................................................................. 1,252 1,252 

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA .......................................................................................................... 2,269 2,269 

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ..................................................................................................... 1,632 1,632 

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................ 825 825 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ......................................................... 920 920 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 1,725 1,725 

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA .......................................................................................... 898 898 

FRANCIS E. WALTER DAM, PA ................................................................................................. 1,156 1,156 

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA .............................................................. 320 320 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ................................................................................ 1,117 1,117 

JOHNSTOWN, PA ....................................................................................................................... 41 41 

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ...................................................................... 1,777 1,777 

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................ 1,316 1,316 

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ................................................................................................... 3,333 3,333 

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ....................................................................................................... 13,267 13,267 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH, AND WV .................................................................. 20,362 20,362 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH, AND WV ........................................................... 682 682 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ......................................................................................... 80 80 

PROMPTON LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................... 492 492 

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ................................................................................................................ 35 35 

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................... 4,206 4,206 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ............................................................................ 46 46 

SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA ............................................................................................................ 100 100 

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................................................................... 2,203 2,203 
47 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

STILLWATER LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................. 511 511 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ........................................................ 101 101 

TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA ................................................................................................... 2,496 2,496 

TIONESTA LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................. 1,735 1,735 

UNION CITY LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................. 449 449 

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................................................. 1,419 1,419 

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA .................................................................................................. 729 729 

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD .............................................................................. 2,451 2,451 

RHODE ISLAND 

FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI ..................................................................... 2,030 2,030 

GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI ................................................................................... 250 250 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI ................................................................................. 45 45 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI .......................................................................................... 500 500 

WOONSOCKET, RI ..................................................................................................................... 679 679 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ...................................................................................................... 15,883 15,883 

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ........................................................................... 4,590 4,590 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ................................................................................ 65 65 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ......................................................................................... 875 875 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ......................................................................................... 9,567 9,567 

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD ........................................................................................................... 453 453 

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD ........................................................................................... 394 394 

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ...................................................................... 8,848 8,848 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ................................................................................ 139 139 

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN ................................................................................................. 583 583 

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND ...................................................................................... 11,215 11,215 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ............................................................................ 120 120 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ............................................................................................................ 5,299 5,299 

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN .............................................................................................. 8,369 8,369 

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................................................. 6,430 6,430 

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN .......................................................................................................... 6,650 6,650 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................................................ 103 103 

J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ........................................................................... 4,622 4,622 

NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, LAKE COUNTY, TN .......................................... 10 10 

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ......................................................................................... 9,755 9,755 

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................................................................................ 20,726 20,726 

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN ....................................................................................................... 109 109 

TEXAS 

AQUILLA LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 1,176 1,176 

ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VI ............................................ 1,529 1,529 

BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX ......................................................................................... 3,011 3,011 

BARDWELL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................ 1,915 1,915 

BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................................. 1,398 1,398 

BELTON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 3,486 3,486 

BENBROOK LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 2,313 2,313 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX .................................................................................................. 3,560 3,560 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ................................................................................. 2,862 2,862 

CANYON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 3,321 3,321 

CEDAR BAYOU, TX ................................................................................................................... 227 227 

CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX ............................................................................................. 409 409

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ...................................................................................... 8,129 8,129 

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX ........................................................................................... 7,137 7,137 

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX ................................................................. 42 42 

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ................................................................... 3,529 3,529 

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ........................................................................................................... 8,848 8,848 
48 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ................................................................................ 3,914 3,914 

GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX .......................................................................................... 363 363 

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................................................. 2,298 2,298 

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 2,696 2,696 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ...................................................................................... 25,580 25,580 

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 1,895 1,895 

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................................. 19,701 19,701 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ................................................................................ 1,863 1,863 

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................... 1,736 1,736 

JOE POOL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................. 1,309 1,309 

LAKE KEMP, TX ........................................................................................................................ 241 241 

LAVON LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................................... 3,017 3,017 

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX ............................................................................................................... 3,295 3,295 

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................. 4,920 4,920 

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................... 3,151 3,151 

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX ....................................................... 2,303 2,303 

O.C. FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ............................................................................................. 1,011 1,011 

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 1,148 1,148 

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................. 2,454 2,454 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ......................................................................................... 225 225 

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 1,493 1,493 

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX ............................................................................................. 19,591 19,591 

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX .............................................................................. 5,881 5,881 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ............................................................................. 224 224 

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 3,190 3,190 

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ................................................................................................ 2,040 2,040 

TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................... 2,234 2,234 

TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX ......................................................................... 100 100 

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B.A. STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ...................................................................... 2,769 2,769 

WACO LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................................... 3,036 3,036 

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 2,482 2,482 

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................... 6,725 6,725 

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 3,513 3,513 

UTAH 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ................................................................................ 103 103 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ............................................................................ 642 642 

VERMONT 

BALL MOUNTAIN, VT ................................................................................................................ 1,016 1,016 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ................................................................................ 208 208 

NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY .......................................................................... 30 30 

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT .................................................................................................... 1,001 1,001 

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ................................................................................................ 854 854 

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ............................................................................................................. 770 770 

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ......................................................................................................... 683 683 

VIRGINIA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA .................................................................... 2,260 2,260 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA .................................................................... 1,110 1,110 

CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA ....................................................................................................... 329 329 

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA .............................................................................. 2,203 2,203 

HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA ........................................... 1,682 1,682 

HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ......................................... 75 75 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ................................................................................ 349 349 

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA .................................................................................................... 3,948 3,948 

JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC ........................................................................................... 10,174 10,174 

JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA .................................................................... 2,608 2,608 

LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA ............................................................................................................. 100 100 

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................................................ 10,077 10,077 

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA ............................................................................... 547 547 

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA .................................................................................................................. 4,834 4,834 
49 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ......................................................................................... 1,373 1,373 

RUDEE INLET, VA ..................................................................................................................... 100 100 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, VA .......................................................................... 110 110 

WASHINGTON 

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA .......................................................................................................... 653 653 

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ..................................................................... 851 851 

GRAYS HARBOR, WA ................................................................................................................ 9,778 9,778 

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA .................................................................................................... 3,187 3,187 

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA .......................................................................................... 4,237 4,237 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA ............................................... 70 70 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA ............................................................................... 630 630 

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ...................................................................................... 8,646 8,646

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................................................ 2,341 2,341 

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA .................................................................................... 3,062 3,062 

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................................ 2,603 2,603 

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ............................................................................................................ 2,243 2,243 

MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ................................................................... 266 266 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ....................................................................................................... 3,698 3,698 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ........................................................................................ 595 595 

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ......................................................................... 1,057 1,057 

QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA ........................................................................................................... 1,140 1,140 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ............................................................................ 453 453 

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................. 957 957 

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ..................................................................................................... 273 273 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ........................................................ 55 55 

TACOMA HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................. 1,033 1,033 

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA .............................................................................................. 144 144

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR ............................................................................. 3,196 3,196 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV ........................................................................................................... 1,648 1,648 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 1,885 1,885 

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................ 2,776 2,776 

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV .............................................................................................................. 2,052 2,052 

ELKINS, WV .............................................................................................................................. 32 32 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV ............................................................................... 389 389 

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ................................................................................ 10,164 10,164 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY, AND OH .................................................................. 41,137 41,137 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY, AND OH ........................................................... 3,053 3,053 

R.D. BAILEY LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 2,576 2,576 

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ............................................................................................. 1,184 1,184 

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV ....................................................................................................... 2,642 2,642 

SUTTON LAKE, WV ................................................................................................................... 2,674 2,674 

TYGART LAKE, WV .................................................................................................................... 1,399 1,399 

WISCONSIN 

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI .................................................................................................... 814 814 

FOX RIVER, WI ......................................................................................................................... 1,949 1,949 

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 3,180 3,180 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ................................................................................ 51 51 

KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI .......................................................................................................... 14 14 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ......................................................................................... 288 288 

STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI ........................................... 19 19 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ......................................................... 540 540 

WYOMING 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY ............................................................................... 59 59 

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY .................................................................................................... 2,356 2,356 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ............................................................................ 119 119 

SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES .......................................................... 2,220,386 2,220,386 
50 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK ........................................................................... ........................ ........................

NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................ ........................ 5,000 

DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL ................................................................... ........................ 7,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS ............................................................................................. ........................ 12,000 

SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE NAVIGATION .................................................. ........................ 30,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ..................................................................................... ........................ 5,000 

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH .............................................................................. 690 690 

ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT .......................................... 4,750 4,750 

BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS ....................................... ........................ ........................

STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................................................................... 1,000 1,000 

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM .............................................. 4,000 4,000 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM .......................................................... 1,650 1,650 

OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION ......................................................................... 392 392 

COASTAL AND OCEAN DATA SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 3,000 5,000 

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM .................................................................................... 2,700 2,700 

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS ......................................................... 5,000 5,000 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ......................................................................... 4,500 4,500 

DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE .................................................................................. 11,857 11,857 

DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ...................................................................................... 12,000 12,000

DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ....................................... 1,150 1,150 

DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH [DOER] ....................................... 6,300 6,300 

DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM [DOTS] .......................................... 2,820 2,820 

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 270 270 

FACILITY PROTECTION [CISP] .................................................................................................. 5,500 5,500 

FERC HYDROPOWER COORDINATION ....................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 

FISH AND WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT ...................................... 4,300 4,300 

GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL ........................................................................................... 1,080 1,080 

INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS ............................................................................... 3,420 3,420 

INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK FORCE/HURRICANE ................................... 7,000 7,000 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS ...................................... 30,603 30,603 

MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ............................................................ 3,920 4,170 

NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY .................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 

NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT .................................. 6,530 6,530 

NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM ................................................................................ 6,300 8,300 

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT) ...................................... 10,000 10,000 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM [NEPP] ................................................... 6,200 6,200 

NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS ..................................................... 571 571 

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT ..................................................................... 300 300 

PROTECT, CLEAR, AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS ..................................................................... 50 50 

REDUCING CIVIL WORKS VULNERABILITY ............................................................................... 8,000 ........................

REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS .............................................................................................. 500 500 

WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ................................................................................... 4,771 4,771 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................... 825 825 

RECREATIONONESTOP [R1S] NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION ...................................... 65 65 

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................... 1,800 4,000 

RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION ............................................... 300 300 

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT [WOTS] ................................................................ 500 500 

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ................................................................................... 177,614 235,064 

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............................................................................. ........................ ¥51,450 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................... 2,398,000 2,404,000 

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 rec-
51 

ognizes the 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, to assist the States in their efforts to prevent the 

spread of invasive mussels to Federal projects in the region. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The fiscal year 2013 

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

continued competitiveness in a global marketplace. Federal navigation channels maintained at only a fraction of authorized dimensions, and navigation locks and hydropower facilities well beyond 

their design life result in economic inefficiencies and risks infrastructure failure, which 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 recommendation includes additional funds to 

continue ongoing projects and activities including periodic dredging 

of ports and harbors. None of these funds may be used for any item 

where funding was specifically denied. The intent of these funds is 

for ongoing work that either was not included in the administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. The Committee directs that priority in allocating these funds be given to completing 

ongoing work maintaining authorized depths and widths of harbors 

and shipping channels, including where contaminated sediments 

are present, and for addressing critical maintenance backlog. Particular emphasis should be placed on projects where there is a U.S. 

Coast Guard presence; that will enhance national, regional, or local 

economic development; or that will promote job growth or international competitiveness. 

The Committee is concerned that the administration’s criteria for 

navigation maintenance does 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 maintenance 

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. 

Funding associated with each category may be allocated to any 

eligible project within that category; funding associated with each 

subcategory may be allocated only to eligible projects within that 

subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant to be exhaustive. Priority in allocating these funds should consider the following: number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; ben-
52 

efits to the local, regional, or national economy; 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 risk of imminent failure or closure of the facility. 

Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall provide 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a work 

plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed. The Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work plan showing all the ongoing projects that were considered eligible and could 

have used funding for fiscal year 2013 and the reasons why these 

items were considered as being less competitive for inclusion in the 

work plan. 

Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability.—No funding is included for 

this new item. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $193,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 205,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 199,000,000 

An appropriation of $199,000,000 is recommended for the regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers. 

This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, including 

wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 

33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977 Public Law 95– 

217, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 

1972 Public Law 92–532. 

The appropriation helps maintain program performance, protects 

important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships with States 

and local communities through watershed planning efforts. 

The Committee believes compensatory mitigation is appropriate 

for a permitted activity when that activity damages or destroys the 

value of wetlands. However, the Committee is concerned about the 

unevenness with which compensatory mitigation for permitted activities is being addressed around the country and the lack of consideration for how the various methods can disproportionately impact vital public works projects and economic development efforts. 

In the Lower Mississippi River Valley, the ‘‘modified Charleston 

method’’ is being used for determining compensatory mitigation. In 

many cases this method is requiring permittees to acquire three 

acres of mitigation for every one acre of habitat that is damaged 

as a result of a permitted action. This has the impact of increasing 

the cost of a project by 300–400 percent. The Committee questions 

the reasonableness of this method of compensatory mitigation. The 

Corps is directed to report to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this act the ways in 

which compensatory mitigation are computed in the various field 

operating agencies of the Corps around the Nation. Additionally, 

this report should provide recommendations as to how compensatory mitigation can be more equitably computed across the 

Corps, as well as how economic interests are being considered. This 

should also include proposals for alternative mitigation strategies 

and broader options to meet mitigation requirements that would 
53 

ensure continued viability for essential community improvement 

projects. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $109,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 104,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 109,000,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $109,000,000 to 

continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2013. 

The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 

the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was transferred from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps of Engineers in the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public Law 105–62. 

FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program was 

established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the Department 

of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. 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 eligible sites where remediation 

had not been completed. It did not intend to transfer ownership of 

and accountability for real property interests that remain with the 

Department of Energy. 

The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the cleanup 

of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its work for the 

Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The Committee 

always intended for the Corps’ expertise be used in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP. The 

Committee expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers—Civil program. 

The Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing completion. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $27,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 30,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,000,000 

The Committee has recommended $30,000,000 for the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account. This account provides funds 

for preparedness activities for natural and other disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting and rescue operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore protection work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean water where the source has 

been contaminated or where adequate supplies of water are needed 

for consumption. 

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $185,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 182,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 182,000,000 
54 

This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, Chief of 

Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research and statistical 

functions of the Corps of Engineers. The Committee recommendation is $182,000,000. 

Executive Direction and Management.—The Office of the Chief of 

Engineers and 8 division offices supervise work in 38 district offices. 

Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.—This support center provides administrative services (such as personnel, logistics, 

information management, and finance and accounting) for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate field operating activities. 

Institute for Water Resources.—This institute performs studies 

and analyses, and develops planning techniques for the management and development of the Nation’s water resources. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.—This 

center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and accounting. 

Office of Congressional Affairs.—The Committee believes that an 

Office of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works Program would 

hamper the efficient and effective coordination of issues with the 

Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee believes 

that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise needed for 

the Corps headquarters to effectively address Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and headquarters policy matters resides in 

the Civil Works organization. Therefore, the Committee strongly 

recommends that the Office of Congressional Affairs not be a part 

of the process by which information on Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to Congress. 

The Corps is reminded that General Expense funds are appropriated solely for the executive management and oversight of the 

Civil Works Program under the direction of the Director of Civil 

Works. 

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

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 for the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works [OASA[CW]]. As 

has been previously stated, the Committee believes that this office 

should be funded through the Defense appropriations bill and directs the administration to budget for this office under the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance—Army account in future budget submissions. It is the Committee’s opinion that the traditional role of the ASA[CW] is to provide the Chief of Engineers 

advice about policy matters and generally be the political spokesperson for the administration’s policies; however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out the program. This is underscored by the administration’s budget documents that state that 

the OASA[CW] provides policy direction and oversight for the civil 

works program and the Headquarters of the Corps provides executive direction and management of the civil works program. 
55 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises the 

Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including the Civil 

Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The Assistant Secretary 

is a member of the Army Secretariat with responsibilities, such as 

participating in continuity of Government exercises that extend 

well beyond Civil Works. 

The Army’s accounting system does not track OMA funding of 

overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which office 

receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective to do so for 

a 20-person office. Instead, expenses such as legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting services, the executive 

motor pool, travel on military aircraft, and other support services 

are centrally funded and managed on a department-wide basis. 

Transferring the funding for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to a separate account has greatly complicated the Army’s accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no commensurate benefit to justify the change. The 

Committee does not agree that these costs should be funded in this 

bill and therefore has only provided funding for salaries and expenses as in previous years. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

Section 101. The bill includes language concerning reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 102. The bill includes language concerning continuing 

contracts and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

Section 103. The bill includes language concerning report notifications. 

Section 104. The bill includes a provision requested by the administration providing the Corps of Engineers authorization for 

emergency measures to exclude Asian Carp from the Great Lakes. 

It should be noted that when considering this language for inclusion in this bill that the Committee did not consider hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes Basin from the Mississippi River Basin 

to be an emergency measure. The Committee believes that the 

issue of hydrologic separation should be fully studied by the Corps 

of Engineers and vetted by the appropriate congressional authorizing committees and specifically enacted into law rather than have 

implementation be attempted through this limited provision. 

Section 105. The bill includes language concerning funding transfers requested by the administration related to fish hatcheries. 

Section 106. The bill includes language concerning a project cost 

increase requested by the administration for the Olmsted Lock and 

Dam Project. 

Section 107. The bill includes language concerning a project deauthorization in Massachusetts. 

Section 108. The bill includes language concerning a project deauthorization in Illinois. 

Section 109. The bill includes language concerning the deauthorization of a portion of a project in Rhode Island. 

Section 110. The bill contains language concerning a project cost 

increase requested by the administration for the Little Calumet, 

Indiana, project. 
56 

Section 111. The bill contains language concerning the combining 

of two projects and the sharing of credits between two projects in 

Florida. 

Section 112. The bill contains language concerning expediting a 

study on preventing the spread of Asian Carp into the Great Lakes. 
(57) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $28,704,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 1 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... 21,000,000 

1The fiscal year 2013 budget request recommended $21,000,000 for the Central Utah Project 

Completion Account as a separate account under the Bureau of Reclamation. 2The Committee elected to retain the Central Utah Project Completion Account as a separate 

account under the Department of Interior. 

While the fiscal year 2013 budget request recommended funding 

for the Central Utah Project Completion Act as a separate account 

under the Bureau of Reclamation, the Committee recommendation 

provides the budget request level of funding as a separate account 

within the Department of Interior as has been the tradition for 

nearly 20 years. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2013 to carry out 

the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act totals 

$21,000,000. An appropriation of $19,800,000 has been provided for 

Central Utah project construction; $1,200,000 for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation, mitigation and conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,300,000 for program administration and 

oversight. 

Legislative language is included which allows up to $1,500,000 of 

the funds provided to be used for administrative costs. 

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, 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. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Reclamation was established in 1902 with the primary mission of harnessing the western rivers that led to homesteading and the economic development in the West. Today, Reclamation has evolved into a contemporary water management 

agency. In addition to the traditional missions of bringing water 
58 

and power to the West, Reclamation has developed and continues 

to develop programs, initiatives, and activities that will help the 

Western States, Native American tribes, and others meet new 

water needs and balance the multitude of competing uses of water 

in the West. 

While Reclamation only has projects in the 17 Western States, 

its programs impact the entire Nation. Reclamation is the largest 

wholesaler of water in the country, operating 348 reservoirs with 

a total storage capacity of 245 million acre-feet. Reclamation 

projects deliver 10 trillion gallons of water to more than 31 million 

people each year, and provide 1 out of 5 Western farmers (140,000) 

with irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 

60 percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits 

and nuts. Reclamation manages, with partners, 289 recreation sites 

that have 90 million visits annually. 

OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation is composed of $1,034,018,000 in new budget authority. The 

budget request is $19,701,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. 

The budget request for Reclamation includes $21,000,000 for the 

Central Utah Project that the administration has proposed to integrate under Reclamation’s jurisdiction as a separate account. The 

Committee has elected to retain the Central Utah Project as a separate account under the Department of Interior. With the Central 

Utah Project funding deleted, the fiscal year 2013 budget request 

for the Bureau of Reclamation is composed of $1,013,018,000 in 

new budget authority, $34,701,000 less than the fiscal year 2012 

enacted amount. 

The Committee believes that the budget request is inadequate to 

fund the water and power needs in the West. Aging infrastructure 

continues to be a major concern as to whether projects will continue to provide the benefits to the economy for which they were 

constructed. New stresses on water supplies from population 

growth to drought require innovative ways to wring every bit of efficiency that is possible out of the existing infrastructure. While 

rural water funding is increased over last year’s request, it is still 

inadequate to allow any of these projects to make substantial 

progress towards completion. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund is proposed at 

$39,883,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is a decrease of $13,185,000 

from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. This account is primarily funded from revenues collected from water and power customers. Levels of funding in this account are based on a 3-year rolling average of revenues collected. 

The California Bay-Delta Restoration account is proposed at 

$36,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is down $3,651,000 from the 

fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. 

The Policy and Administration account is requested at 

$60,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. 
59 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $895,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 1 ......................................................................... 818,635,000 

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... 892,135,000 

1The budget request includes the funding for the Central Utah Project Completion Act. 

2The Committee recommendation does not include funding for the Central Utah Project Completion Act within this account as proposed in the budget request, but does include the amounts 

proposed for Indian Water Rights Settlements and the San Joaquin Restoration proposed as separate accounts in the budget request. 

An appropriation of $892,135,000 is recommended by the Committee for the Bureau of Reclamation. This includes the budget request for Water and Related Resources. Also included within this 

amount are the proposed funding levels for Indian Water Rights 

Settlements and the San Joaquin River Restoration. As indicated, 

the Committee does not adopt the administration’s proposal to include funding for the Central Utah Project under this account. 

The water and related resources account supports the development, management, and restoration of water and related natural 

resources in the 17 Western States. The account includes funds for 

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest 

overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct 

studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural 

resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with 

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies. 

The Committee has divided underfinancing between the Resources Management subaccount and the Facilities Operation and 

Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly 

across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon applying the 

underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should 

be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations, or 

other unforeseen conditions. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The budget for the Bureau of Reclamation consists of individual 

line-items of projects. As presented by the President, the budget 

contains 195 specific line-item requests for directed spending by the 

administration. An additional 46 line-item requests for funding by 

the administration are for nationwide line-items. All of these lineitems were specific requests by the administration to be funded in 

fiscal year 2013. The administration did not request these funds 

programmatically, but rather requested them for a specific project 

in a specific location for a specific purpose. 

Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous with 

earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the Bureau 

of Reclamation where the majority of the budget request is based 

on individual line-item studies and projects. Due to this ongoing 

debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all congressionally 

directed spending requests for fiscal year 2013. Accordingly, the administration has total discretion as to how the funding that this 

Committee appropriates will be spent as it relates to individual 

studies and projects. The Committee has retained the traditional 

table for the Water and Related Resources Account delineating the 

line-items requested by the President in the budget request. Due 
60 

to inadequacies in the administration’s budget request, the Committee has also inserted some additional line-item funding under 

the Regional Programs heading for specific categories of studies or 

projects that the Committee feels are underrepresented in the administration’s budget request. Reclamation has discretion within 

the guidelines provided as to which line-items this additional funding will be applied to. The Committee has not included any congressionally directed spending as defined in section 5(a) of rule 

XLIV of the standing rules of the Senate. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

ARIZONA 

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ............... .................. 12,075 .................. 12,075 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN—CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT ..................... 7,456 436 7,456 436 

COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM .......................... 1,907 .................. 1,907 ..................

SALT RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................ 684 231 684 231 

SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ........ 78 .................. 78 ..................

SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY ............................. 500 .................. 500 ..................

YUMA AREA PROJECTS .......................................................................... 1,585 20,430 1,585 20,430 

CALIFORNIA 

CACHUMA PROJECT ............................................................................... 678 653 678 653 

CENTRAL VALLY PROJECT: 

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/MORMON ISLAND ........................................................................................ 1,480 9,086 1,480 9,086 

AUBURN–FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT .................................................... 33 3,132 33 3,132 

DELTA DIVISION ............................................................................ 6,577 5,342 6,577 5,342 

EAST SIDE DIVISION ..................................................................... 1,246 2,602 1,246 2,602 

FRIANT DIVISION .......................................................................... 2,252 3,307 2,252 3,307 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ............... .................. .................. 12,000 ..................

MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ........................................ 9,508 935 9,508 935 

REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................... .................. 17,230 .................. 17,230 

SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ..................................................... 4,153 1,261 4,153 1,261 

SAN FELIPE DIVISION ................................................................... 411 166 411 166 

SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ................................................................ 50 .................. 50 ..................

SHASTA DIVISION ......................................................................... 416 7,956 416 7,956 

TRINITY RIVER DIVISION .............................................................. 14,527 4,110 14,527 4,110 

WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ................................................ 1,239 6,965 1,239 6,965 

WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ............................ 17,740 6,313 17,740 6,313 

ORLAND PROJECT .................................................................................. .................. 633 .................. 633 

SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ........................................................ 300 .................. 300 ..................

SOLANO PROJECT .................................................................................. 1,356 2,256 1,356 2,256 

VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................... 348 29 348 29 

COLORADO 

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT .................................................................. 1,146 1,188 1,146 1,188 

COLLBRAN PROJECT .............................................................................. 242 1,511 242 1,511 

COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT ................................................... 277 13,369 277 13,369 

FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT ............................................................. 129 171 129 171 

FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT ........................................................... 324 8,494 324 8,494 

FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT—ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT ......... 3,000 .................. 3,000 ..................

GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ............................................... 631 1,338 631 1,338 

LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT ............................... .................. 4,106 .................. 4,106 

MANCOS PROJECT ................................................................................. 95 121 95 121 

PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ........................................... 109 2,519 109 2,519 

PINE RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................ 179 288 179 288 

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT ................................................................... 349 4,834 349 4,834 
61 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT ...................................................................... 783 209 783 209 

UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ............................... 265 .................. 265 ..................

IDAHO 

BOISE AREA PROJECTS ......................................................................... 2,878 2,696 2,878 2,696 

COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT .............. 18,000 .................. 18,000 ..................

LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS .......................................................... 689 30 689 30 

MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ................................................................... 2,160 7,417 2,160 7,417 

PRESTON BENCH PROJECT ................................................................... 4 8 4 8 

KANSAS 

WICHITA PROJECT—CHENEY DIVISION ................................................. 46 534 46 534 

WICHITA PROJECT—EQUUS BEDS DIVISION ......................................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

MONTANA 

FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM ......... 7,500 .................. 7,500 ..................

HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ..................................................................... .................. 763 .................. 763 

HUNTLEY PROJECT ................................................................................ 32 56 32 56 

LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT ........................................................... 364 36 364 36 

MILK RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................ 348 1,591 348 1,591 

ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER SYSTEM ...... 4,000 .................. 4,000 ..................

SUN RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................. 53 271 53 271 

NEBRASKA 

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ....................................................................... 16 131 16 131 

NEVADA 

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT ................................................................... 4,199 5,317 4,199 5,317 

LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ............................... 112 .................. 112 ..................

LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ............................................. 206 .................. 206 ..................

NEW MEXICO 

CARLSBAD PROJECT .............................................................................. 2,670 1,090 2,670 1,090 

EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY ................................... 1,978 .................. 1,978 ..................

JICARILLA APACHE RURAL WATER SYSTEM .......................................... 500 .................. 500 ..................

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT ............................................................. 9,838 12,699 9,838 12,699 

RIO GRANDE PROJECT .......................................................................... 1,127 4,249 1,127 4,249 

RIO GRANDE PUEBLOS PROJECT .......................................................... 250 .................. 250 ..................

TUCUMCARI PROJECT ............................................................................ 45 45 45 45 

NORTH DAKOTA 

PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN—GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT ............... 19,106 6,413 19,106 6,413 

OKLAHOMA 

ARBUCKLE PROJECT .............................................................................. 66 179 66 179 

MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ....................................................................... 37 801 37 801 

MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT .................................................................... 25 560 25 560 

NORMAN PROJECT ................................................................................. 17 477 17 477 

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT ...................................................................... 95 1,483 95 1,483 

W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ........................................................................... 57 608 57 608 

OREGON 

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT .................................................................... 367 400 367 400 

DESCHUTES PROJECT ............................................................................ 348 328 348 328 

EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ............................................................... 689 220 689 220 

KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION AGREEMENT ........................................ 7,101 .................. 7,101 ..................

KLAMATH PROJECT ................................................................................ 16,503 2,130 16,503 2,130 

ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ................................ 478 285 478 285 

TUALATIN PROJECT ................................................................................ 102 158 102 158 

UMATILLA PROJECT ............................................................................... 787 3,019 787 3,019 
62 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM .......................................... 4,500 .................. 4,500 ..................

MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT .................................................. .................. 15 .................. 15 

MNI WICONI PROJECT ........................................................................... 23,000 12,200 23,000 12,200 

RAPID VALLEY PROJECT ........................................................................ .................. 92 .................. 92 

TEXAS 

BALMORHEA PROJECT ........................................................................... 43 15 43 15 

CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ................................................................... 80 121 80 121 

LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 50 .................. 50 ..................

NUECES RIVER PROJECT ....................................................................... 47 636 47 636 

SAN ANGELO PROJECT .......................................................................... 56 537 56 537 

UTAH 

HYRUM PROJECT ................................................................................... 238 145 238 145 

MOON LAKE PROJECT ............................................................................ 102 68 102 68 

NEWTON PROJECT ................................................................................. 41 82 41 82 

OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ........................................................................ 220 229 220 229 

PROVO RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................... 1,213 415 1,213 415 

SANPETE PROJECT ................................................................................ 60 11 60 11 

SCOFIELD PROJECT ............................................................................... 253 55 253 55 

STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT ............................................................ 376 40 376 40 

WEBER BASIN PROJECT ........................................................................ 966 873 966 873 

WEBER RIVER PROJECT ........................................................................ 76 75 76 75 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ................................................................... 3,595 5,436 3,595 5,436 

WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS .............................................................. 411 52 411 52 

YAKIMA PROJECT ................................................................................... 801 6,617 801 6,617 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ....................... 9,500 .................. 9,500 ..................

WYOMING 

KENDRICK PROJECT .............................................................................. 117 4,736 117 4,736 

NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ....................................................................... 240 1,340 240 1,340 

SHOSHONE PROJECT ............................................................................. 75 792 75 792 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ........................................... 230,956 231,872 242,956 231,872 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

RURAL WATER .............................................................................. .................. .................. 15,000 ..................

FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS ............................................. .................. .................. 5,000 ..................

WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY STUDIES, PROJECTS ...... .................. .................. 8,000 ..................

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE ..................... .................. .................. 5,000 ..................

FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILITATION .... .................. .................. .................. 9,300 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I .......... .................. 10,706 .................. 10,706 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I .......... 8,000 .................. 8,000 ..................

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 5 .................. 4,463 4,817 4,463 4,817 

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 8 .................. 4,315 .................. 4,315 ..................

COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ............... 537 .................. 537 ..................

DAM SAFETY PROGRAM: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ............ .................. 1,100 .................. 1,100 

INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION ........................ .................. 67,000 .................. 67,000 

SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS .............................................. .................. 19,350 .................. 19,350 

DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ................................... .................. .................. 500 ..................

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ............ .................. 1,300 .................. 1,300 

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM ......... 18,890 .................. 18,890 ..................

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ...................................... 1,670 .................. 1,670 ..................

EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ............................................. .................. 8,760 .................. 8,760 
63 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM .................................. .................. 1,300 .................. 1,300 

GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES ............................................................ 2,532 .................. 2,532 ..................

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS: 

AAMODT ........................................................................................ .................. .................. 5,000 ..................

CROW ........................................................................................... .................. .................. 10,000 ..................

NAVAJO-GALLUP ........................................................................... .................. .................. 25,000 ..................

TAOS ............................................................................................. .................. .................. 4,000 ..................

WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE ........................................................... .................. .................. 2,500 ..................

LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................ 8,702 .................. 8,702 ..................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM .............................. 27,190 .................. 27,190 ..................

MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS .................................. .................. 871 .................. 871 

NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM ................................................. 6,393 .................. 6,393 ..................

NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ............... 2,409 .................. 2,409 ..................

OPERATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ........................................... 1,007 1,210 1,007 1,210 

PICK–SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM—OTHER PICK SLOAN ......... 3,345 39,067 3,345 39,067 

POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ................................................................ 3,623 307 3,623 307 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM .............................................. 666 206 666 206 

RECLAMATION-WIDE AGING INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................... .................. 7,300 .................. ..................

RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ................................................... 2,311 .................. 2,311 ..................

RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .... 2,508 .................. 2,508 ..................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: 

DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM ................. 2,000 998 2,000 998 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ....................................... 10,050 .................. 10,050 ..................

SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES .................................................................... .................. 26,900 .................. 26,900 

UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL SUPPORT ...... 97 .................. 97 ..................

WATERSMART PROGRAM: 

WATERSMART GRANTS ................................................................. 21,500 .................. 21,500 ..................

WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM .................... 5,886 .................. 5,886 ..................

COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ................................... 250 .................. 250 ..................

BASIN STUDIES ............................................................................ 6,000 .................. 6,000 ..................

TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM: 

COMMISSONER’S OFFICE TITLE XVI .................................... 16,560 .................. 16,560 ..................

PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION AND 

REUSE ............................................................................. 200 .................. 200 ..................

LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT, CA ......................... 500 .................. 500 ..................

LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT, CA ... 500 .................. 500 ..................

SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM, CA .... 2,300 .................. 2,300 ..................

SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM .............................................................................. 211 .................. 211 ..................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ................................... 164,615 191,192 244,615 193,192 

UNDERFINANCING .................................................................................. .................. .................. ¥11,759 ¥8,741 

GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ................. 818,635 892,135 

Central Valley Project, Friant Division, San Joaquin Restoration.—The Committee has chosen not to include a separate account 

for this item. Rather it is being funded as a sub-element under the 

Friant Division of the Central Valley Project. The Committee believes that this is prudent to keep these funds within the Water 

and Related Resources account maximizing the flexibility of the 

funding. 

Indian Water Rights Settlements Account.—The Committee has 

chosen not to include a separate account for this work. The Committee recognizes that these are legal settlements with the affected 

tribes, however, believe it is prudent to keep these items within the 

Water and Related Resources Account. Beyond the actual water 
64 

rights settlement funding, many of these settlements included construction components very similar to rural water projects funded 

elsewhere in this account. The Committee understands that, due to 

the way the settlements were structured, some of the discretionary 

funding may not be obligated in fiscal year 2013 and will be carried 

over into later years. The Committee urges Reclamation to minimize this practice to the extent practicable and within the confines 

of these settlements. To maintain the visibility of these projects, 

the Committee has included the five projects under the Regional 

Programs heading with a subheading called Indian Water Rights 

Settlements. 

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 Service 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 an 

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 develop and implement a plan to provide the community with a reliable supply of uncontaminated source water in the 

amount of 900 acre-feet no later than 180 days following enactment 

of this Act. 

Expedite Water Transfers.—The Committee urges the Secretary 

of the Interior to take all necessary actions to facilitate and expedite transfers of Central Valley Project water in accordance with 

this Act and other applicable provisions of Federal and state law, 

including Federal reclamation law and the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. To ensure the expeditious review of water transfer applications, the Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, is urged to adopt a policy to require Reclamation to determine whether a written transfer proposal is complete within 45 

days after the date of submission of such proposal by a contracting 

district. If Reclamation determines that a proposal is incomplete, 

Reclamation shall notify the applicant and the Secretary shall state 

with specificity what must be added or revised in order for such 

proposal to be considered complete. 

Sierra Nevada Forest Watersheds.—The Committee directs the 

Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the 

Bureau of Reclamation and the Director of the United States Geological Survey, and in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to provide an assessment of the scientific literature regarding current or proposed national forest management practices in 

the Sierra Nevadas that could potentially generate water supply or 

other benefits or impacts to the Central Valley Project and the 

State Water Project. This assessment should include cost-benefit 

analysis of potential forest management actions that would be mutually beneficial to national forest lands and water supply yield 

and, if merited, recommendations for further congressional action. 
65 

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 is prudent to determine the 

vulnerabilities of the infrastructure. The Committee recognizes the 

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 develop a strategy of minimizing the impacts to vulnerable 

infrastructure in this region. The Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation, 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 Reclamation to assist the States, 

where appropriate, in their efforts to prevent the spread of invasive 

mussels to Federal projects in the region. 

Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.—The 

Committee recommendation includes additional funds above the 

budget request for Water and Related Resources studies, projects, 

and activities. The Committee recommends that priority in allocating these funds should be given to complete ongoing work, improve water supply reliability, improve water deliveries, tribal and 

nontribal water settlement studies, ecosystem restoration, enhance 

national, regional, or local economic development, promote job 

growth and for critical backlog maintenance activities. 

The intent of these funds is for work that either were omitted 

from the budget request or were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 

days of enactment, Reclamation shall provide the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how these 

funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work is being 

accomplished. 

WaterSmart Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse 

Projects.—The Committee believes there is an opportunity to enhance the program’s effectiveness through the advancement of regional-scale projects that include multiple jurisdictions and generate environmental as well as water supply benefits. These regional projects can require longer planning and construction timeframes than other more narrowly focused projects. Accordingly, the 

Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to consider allocating 

a portion of the funds within the overall title XVI program in future budget requests to be used for advancing of regional-scale 

water reclamation and reuse projects by providing planning and 

construction assistance grants that can each be used over a period 

of up to 5 years. 

Additionally, the Committee is concerned that constrained budgets impact the research and development initiatives vital to improvements in water recycling and desalination technologies development and applications. The Committee believes that only 

through enhanced Federal and non-Federal research partnerships 

can research and development vital to much needed improvements 

in water recycling and desalination technologies development and 
66 

applications be accomplished. The Bureau of Reclamation should 

consider budgeting for extramural cost-shared research grants to 

fund high-priority research and development initiatives on water 

reuse, recycling and desalination by not-for-profit organizations 

who often partner with the Bureau of Reclamation. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $53,068,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 39,883,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,883,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,883,000 for 

the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 

102–575. This fund uses revenues from payments by project beneficiaries and donations for habitat restoration, improvement and 

acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the 

Central Valley project area of California. Payments from project 

beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant Division 

surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, 

and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments. 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act, enacted into law in 

October 1992, established 34 activities to restore and enhance fish 

and wildlife habitats in California’s Central Valley and Trinity Basins. The act established a Restoration Fund for the deposit of contributions from CVP water and power users to pay for those activities, along with contributions from the State of California, Federal 

appropriations, and other contributors. Unfortunately, a number of 

sources envisioned to contribute to this fund never materialized or 

funding is no longer available from those sources. 

Power users, in particular, are paying a much greater share than 

anyone anticipated. This has resulted in high CVP power costs, and 

unpredictable fee assessments on power agencies. The fees imposed 

on power users are unpredictable, since in low water years the 

water users pay very little and the power users make up the difference. The Restoration Fund collection in the early years of the 

act was the equivalent of adding $1 per megawatt hour to the cost 

of CVP power, but this has now increased to an average cost of approximately $11 per megawatt hour over the last 4 years. 

Since the fund was established in 1992 more than $1,400,000,000 

has been spent for restoration activities, but there has been little 

accountability on how effectively it has been used. There is very little assurance that the goals of the Restoration Fund will be met 

in the near future, such that the fees could be reduced under the 

statute. Therefore, the Committee urges the Commissioner to continue to work with power users to determine a more predictable 

payment stream for power users and to develop measures to provide more accountability and transparency to the restoration process. Further, a report covering the previous fiscal year activities 

should be incorporated into the budget justifications submitted 

with the President’s budget request starting in fiscal year 2014. 
67 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $39,651,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 36,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,000,000 

The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of 

$36,000,000 for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

This account funds activities that are consistent with the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18 

State and Federal agencies and representatives of California’s 

urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of 

the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply 

reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California’s water distribution system. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $60,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 60,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 60,000,000 

The Committee recommendation for general administrative expenses is $60,000,000. 

The policy and administrative expenses program provides for the 

executive direction and management of all reclamation activities, 

as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC; 

Denver, Colorado; and five regional offices. The Denver office 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. 

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... $46,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the Indian 

Water Rights Settlements Account. 

This account was proposed as a part of the administration request to cover expenses associated with four Indian water rights 

settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public 

Law 111–291), title X of the Omnibus Public Lands Management 

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11), and the White Mountain Apache 

Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act (Public Law 

110–390). Rather than create a new account as proposed, the Committee has provided this funding request under the Regional Programs section of the Water and Related Resources Account as similar work and funding has been previously provided in that account. 

SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... $12,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 
68 

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the San Joaquin Restoration Fund Account. 

This account was proposed to implement the provisions described 

in the Stipulation of Settlement for the National Resources Defense 

Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit. Rather than provide discretionary 

funding in this account as proposed, the Committee has provided 

this funding request under the Central Valley Project, Friant Division of the Water and Related Resources Account as similar work 

and funding has been previously provided in that account. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Section 201. The bill includes language regarding Bureau of Reclamation Reprogramming. 

Section 202. The bill includes language regarding the San Luis 

Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

Section 203. The bill includes language concerning groundwater 

banking requested by the administration. 

Section 204. The bill includes language concerning water transfers requested by the administration. 

Section 205. The bill includes language extending the Drought 

Act and raising the appropriation ceiling. 

Section 206. The bill includes language concerning drought planning assistance in the Central Valley Project. 

Section 207. The bill includes language concerning water storage 

studies. 

Section 208. This provision concerns the Friant prepayment for 

the San Joaquin River Settlement currently authorized for disbursement starting in 2019. The provision advances disbursement 

of these prepaid funds to 2014 and limits expenditure of these authorized mandatory funds to $40,000,000 per year. The section 

changes no other provisions of the San Joaquin River Settlement. 

Section 209. This section requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

develop and issue a plan identifying strategies to increase Central 

Valley Project water supplies during years when water allocations 

are likely to be low. It is the Committee’s intent that this plan will 

be finalized and ready for implementation within the 2013 water 

year. 

The Committee acknowledges that the Secretary of the Interior, 

acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, implemented an aggressive water supply initiative in 2010 that produced more than 

150,000 acre-feet of water through various administrative actions. 

The intent of the plan required under this section is to identify 

those actions utilized by Reclamation in 2010 and any other measures which may provide additional water supplies for CVP contractors in dry, critically dry and below normal years. 

Section 210. This bill includes language concerning the San Gabriel Restoration Fund. 
(69) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

The Committee recommends $27,127,564,000 for the Department 

of Energy. Within these funds, $11,510,886,000 is for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. The Committee’s highest 

priority is accelerating breakthroughs in clean energy technologies 

to reduce the Nation’s dependence on foreign oil and developing 

carbon-free sources of energy that will change the way the United 

States produces and consumes energy. Moreover, the Committee 

recommends an increase of $510,886,000 above fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for NNSA to address critical national security missions. The increase would allow NNSA to stay on track to meet its 

goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials in 4 years to protect the United States against nuclear terrorism, continue modernizing the nuclear weapons complex consistent with the Nuclear 

Posture Review and New START Treaty, and develop a new reactor 

core for the OHIO-class submarine. 

EXASCALE INITIATIVE

The Committee continues to support the Department’s initiative 

to develop exascale computing—1,000 times more powerful than today’s most powerful computer. The Committee recommends 

$137,500,000 to support this initiative, which includes $68,500,000 

for the Office of Science and $69,000,000 for the NNSA. The Committee understands that with today’s technology, an exascale computer would consume more than 200 megawatts of power at a cost 

of $200,000,000–$300,000,000 per year, would have an extremely 

high failure rate, and be difficult to program and use. For this reason, the committee supports a focused research, development, and 

engineering effort to address technical challenges and deploy an 

exascale system by 2022 that uses no more than 20 megawatts of 

power. 

STREAMLINING SECURITY CONTRACTS

The Committee is concerned that the Department has duplicative 

overhead costs in providing protection services for laboratories and 

sensitive sites around the country. The Committee is concerned 

that these contracts are not uniformly managed, organized, or 

staffed, which creates concerns about the safety of the national laboratories as well as fiscal responsibility with taxpayer dollars. In 

November 2011, the Department’s Inspector General recommended 

that the Department pursue either a master contract, consolidation 

by region, or Federalizing the protective force to help reduce costs. 

The Committee directs that no later than 60 days after enactment 

of this act the Department provide the House and Senate Appro-
70 

priations Committees a plan to reduce the overhead costs of protective forces at sensitive sites and laboratories which includes one of 

the options recommended by the Inspector General, or another option that may have equal or greater contracting cost reductions. 

CONTRACTOR SUPPORT COSTS

The Committee notes the Government Accountability Office 

[GAO] has identified Department of Energy contractor support 

costs as an area where opportunities may exist to reduce costs. Approximately 90 percent of the Department’s budget is spent on contractors to carry out its missions and operate its sites nationwide. 

These management and operating contractors also provide sites’ 

support functions. According to GAO, the cost of support functions 

at the NNSA and Office of Science sites increased by 10 percent between fiscal year 2007 and 2009. The Department is directed to 

take actions to manage cost growth in support functions and related costs, and describe ongoing and future efforts to meet GAO 

recommendations in this area and report to the Committee within 

30 days of enactment of this act. 

SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTING

The Committee directs the Department to make no changes to its 

current small-business contracting processes related to the Department’s national laboratories. Under DOE’s management and operations contracts with the national laboratories, about 10 percent to 

20 percent of total laboratory budgets are currently subcontracted 

to small business and managed locally by each laboratory. The 

Committee understands that the Department is considering converting these laboratory-managed subcontracts to primary contracts let and managed by the Department. The Committee is concerned that such a change will not result in any increase in funding available to small businesses. In fact, the Committee is concerned that the Department’s proposed plan will increase contracting bureaucracy and result in a loss of efficiencies derived 

from the localized management and operation of the national laboratories. The Committee directs the Department to consult Congress, including the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, before making any changes to small-business contracting 

procedures. 

NEW POSITIONS

The Committee is concerned about the Department’s creation of 

new senior-level positions without advance notification. Such positions necessitate budgetary requirements, and as such the Committee expects in the future to be notified of the Department’s 

plans (including those of the NNSA) to create new senior level position, along with the budget needed to sustain such positions. 

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

The Committee recognizes the progress the Department has 

made on updating the format of the budget justification submission. Although the format is more condensed, parts of the justifica-
71 

tion—particularly the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

[EERE] section—are nearly devoid of usable information and make 

meaningful analysis of the budget impossible. For example, the justification does not list how much funding was proposed for either 

of the two hubs in EERE. The Committee appreciates the Department’s follow-up in providing needed information. While the Committee supports displaying how funding is distributed among technology readiness levels, the narrative should pertain to a comparable structure to previously enacted acts to enable comparison 

of activities, and funding information should be displayed in comparable account structures showing at least the program, project or 

activity level. For the fiscal year 2014 budget justification, the 

Committee directs the Department to implement these conforming 

changes, and provide significantly more detail to the Committee on 

Appropriations to enable adequate analysis of the budget request. 

Any program, project or activity should be readily identifiable and 

easy to locate in the budget justification. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Department of Energy is directed to operate in a manner 

fully consistent with the following reprogramming guidelines. A reprogramming request must be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations for consideration before any implementation of a reorganization proposal which includes moving previous appropriations 

between appropriation accounts. The Department is directed to inform the Committees promptly and fully when a change in program 

execution and funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist 

the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided 

for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Department 

is directed to follow this guidance for all programs and activities 

unless specific reprogramming guidance is provided for a program 

or activity. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, activity, or organization 

described in the agency’s budget justification as presented to and 

approved by Congress. For construction projects, a reprogramming 

constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project 

identified in the justifications to another project or a significant 

change in the scope of an approved project. 

Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or prior 

year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees in writing 

and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees 

on Appropriations. 
72 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. 1 $1,825,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 2,337,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2 1,985,735,000 

1Does not include rescission of $9,909,000 under Public Law 112–331. 

2Does not include proposed rescission of $69,667,000. 

The Committee recommendation is $1,985,735,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

Quadrennial Technology Review.—Based on the results of the 

Department’s Quadrennial Technology Review, and the Nation’s 

many urgent energy challenges, the Committee strongly recommends that the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy consider applying more funding toward near-term commercialization efforts in partnership with the private sector. 

Budgeting for Facilities.—The Committee directs the Department 

to provide support for the base operating costs of the Energy Systems Integration Facility [ESIF], a new technology user facility, 

which will begin operations in fiscal year 2013 and transfer the 

necessary funds from the technology programs into the Facilities 

and Infrastructure account. Starting in fiscal year 2014, the Committee expects the Department to request a ‘‘Facility Management’’ 

subprogram budget within Facilities and Infrastructure to support 

ESIF operations. 

Hydrogen Technology.—The Committee continues to support fuel 

cell and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle, motive 

and portable power applications. The Committee recommends 

$104,000,000 for the Fuel Cell Technologies program, $24,000,000 

above the request and consistent with last year’s appropriated 

funding. Within this total funding, $14,000,000 is for Technology 

Validation focused on passenger vehicle and hydrogen infrastructure applications where vehicles will be deployed, $34,000,000 is for 

hydrogen fuels R&D, and $15,000,000 is for 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. 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.—The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for biomass and biorefinery systems R&D. 

Within the available funds, the Department is encouraged to direct 

a total of $30,000,000 for algae biofuels. 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 directed to include biosolids derived from the municipal wastewater treatment process and other similar renewables 

within the definition of noncellulosic. In funding biomass and 

biofuels refinery systems, the Department is encouraged to provide 

funding to projects that utilize regionally available and appropriate 

wood and agricultural biomass feedstock for thermal heating appli-
73 

cations. The Committee recognizes that quality and reliability of 

supplies will be key in acceptance of advanced drop-in biofuels into 

the supply chain once they are demonstrated at a convincing scale. 

To that end, the Committee is supportive of the collaboration between the Navy, Department of Agriculture and DOE to develop innovative technologies for jet and diesel fuels for military uses. With 

the Department of Defense as an early adopter of these alternative 

fuels, the wider marketplace will be more likely to follow. 

Solar Energy.—The Committee recommends $293,000,000 for 

solar energy. The Committee supports the budget increase in the 

Market Barriers program to $25,000,000 and directs the Department to prioritize the expansion of the Rooftop Solar Challenge 

program, focused specifically on streamlining permitting and inspection processes. Work in fiscal year 2013 will focus on applying 

best practices developed in fiscal year 2012 more broadly throughout the country. Further, the Department of Energy shall continue 

to fund projects to demonstrate innovative solar energy technologies including in coordination with its regional testing centers 

to validate these new technologies by developing the standards and 

guidelines to certify the performance and operation of utility scale 

solar energy projects. 

Wind Energy.—The recommendation is $95,000,000 for wind energy. The Committee directs $37,200,000 for offshore wind technologies, including freshwater, deepwater, shallow water, and transitional depth installations. The Committee understands that the 

Department is making resources available on a competitive basis 

for offshore wind advanced technology demonstration projects and 

expects that such funds continue to be awarded for new and innovative technologies. The Committee encourages the Department to 

support collaborative industry/university research involving modeling and visualization aimed at extending the life of wind turbine 

blades. 

Geothermal Technology.—The recommendation for geothermal 

technology is $65,000,000. The funds made available by this section 

shall be disbursed to the full spectrum of geothermal technologies 

as authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (Public Law 110–140) and the Department of Energy shall 

continue its support of comprehensive programs that support academic and professional development initiatives. The Committee 

continues to have concerns about the level of funding devoted to 

low-temperature geothermal research and development and directs 

the Department to provide funding to this geothermal area of research and development. The U.S. Geological Survey has identified 

more than 120,000 MW of untapped potential at these temperatures. 

Water Power Energy R&D.—The Committee recommends 

$59,000,000 for water power. The budget request of $20,000,000 allocated $15,000,000, or 75 percent, of the funding to marine and 

hydrokinetic technology and $5,000,000, or 25 percent, of the funding to conventional hydropower. The Committee believes the budget request is inadequate for both categories of technology, but accepts the proposed ratio of funding. Hence, the Committee recommends $44,000,000 for marine and hydrokinetic technology re-
74 

search, development and deployment and $15,000,000 for conventional hydropower. 

Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to provide up to $5,000,000 for the construction of necessary testing 

infrastructure for marine and hydrokinetic systems. The Committee encourages the Department to coordinate with the Department of Defense and designated National Marine Renewable Energy Centers for ocean renewable energy demonstration activities. 

Additionally, the Committee directs the Department to provide not 

less than $20,000,000 for competitive demonstrations of marine 

and hydrokinetic technologies. Not later than October 31, 2012, the 

Department shall provide a briefing to the Committee on the report 

required in fiscal year 2010 outlining the Department’s research 

and development priorities and goals for this program during fiscal 

years 2011 through 2015 along with efforts to further validate the 

economic and technical viability of a variety of marine and 

hydrokinetic technologies. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Committee recommends $330,000,000 

for vehicle technologies. Within the available funds, the Committee 

provides full funding for existing contracts in the Super Truck program. The Committee is concerned that the budget’s proposed 

funding for Innovative and Emerging Technologies related to aerodynamic drag reduction for large trucks are insufficient to achieve 

the goal to improve the fuel economy of heavy duty, class eight vehicles by fifty percent. Within available funds, an increase of 

$10,000,000 is provided to the Vehicle Systems, Simulations, and 

Testing sub-activity. Further, within available funds, $4,000,000 is 

provided for lightweight materials modeling and design for vehicle 

optimization and $10,000,000 is provided to continue funding of 

section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. 

Building Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$220,000,000 for building technologies. The Committee funds the 

Building Innovation Hub at $24,238,000 as requested in the budget. The Committee is concerned about misinformation and confusion among consumers and public officials that the energy efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs, effective January 1, 

2011, will ban incandescent bulbs. The Committee notes that the 

standards require that incandescent bulbs be more efficient, do not 

ban any type of product, and have the support of the United States 

lighting industry. To increase consumer awareness, the Committee 

directs the Secretary, in coordination with manufacturers, retailers, 

consumer groups, and energy efficiency advocacy organizations, to 

continue its education campaign on the new light bulb standards, 

the new bulb labels, and on the availability and benefits of highefficiency lighting products. The Department is encouraged to provide no less than $10,000,000 to support research, development, 

and strategic deployment of geothermal heat pump technology. 

The Committee recognizes that the Government Accountability 

Office [GAO] recently reported that Federal agencies have limited 

collaboration across initiatives to promote non-Federal green buildings. Additionally, GAO found that only about one-third of these 

initiatives have goals and performance measures, making overall 

results and their related investments impossible to quantify. The 

Committee directs the Department to collaborate with other agen-
75 

cies identified in the GAO report to ensure that funding provided 

in this Act is not overlapping or duplicative of activities carried out 

by those agencies, and provide clear, measurable metrics to assess 

the results of this program. 

Advanced Manufacturing.—The Committee recommends 

$168,635,000. The recommendation includes funding for the Critical Materials hub at the request level. The Department is encouraged to utilize $500,000 to continue the mechanical insulation campaign that was initiated in fiscal year 2010 and is ongoing with industry cost-sharing and collaborating on content. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management Program. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$26,400,000 for facilities and infrastructure consistent with the 

budget request. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $164,700,000 

for program direction. 

Strategic Programs.—The Committee recommends $25,000,000 

for strategic programs. The strategic priorities and impact analysis 

subprogram is funded at $8,000,000. 

Weatherization Assistance Program.—The Committee provides $145,000,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee notes that while this level is an increase over the 

amount appropriated for fiscal year 2012, it represents a substantial reduction in total available funding given that less will be 

available for carryover in fiscal year 2013. The Committee notes 

the important role that weatherization plays in permanently reducing home energy costs for low-income families, lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and training a skilled workforce. The Committee is concerned about the potential impact a lower funding 

level may have on low-income households served by the program. 

Intergovernmental Activities.—The Committee provides $50,000,000 for State Energy Programs and $10,000,000 for Tribal 

Energy Activities. 

Rescission of Prior-Year Balances.—The Committee rescinds 

$69,667,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the budget request. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $139,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 143,015,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 143,015,000 

The Committee recommends $143,015,000 for Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability. The funding is provided consistent with the 

budget request and includes $20,000,000 for the proposed Electricity Systems Hub. Within the funding available for storage, the 

Department is encouraged to include research and development of 

nano-structured materials, such as nano-structured carbon electrodes. Further, the Department is encouraged to use available 

funding to issue grants for regional transmission planning to support or implement accelerated deployment of new renewable electricity generation in the Western and Eastern interconnections. 

The Department, in working with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
76 

Commission, shall continue to provide technical assistance to states 

seeking to form interstate compacts for the purposes of improving 

regional transmission capacity, as provided for in section 1221 of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–58). 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $768,663,000 

Budget Estimate, 2013 .......................................................................... 770,445,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 785,445,000 

The Committee recommends $785,445,000 for Nuclear Energy, 

including $93,000,000 for safeguards and security at Idaho National Laboratory. In addition, the Committee recommends use of 

prior year balances in the amount of $17,700,000 for a total budget 

of $803,145,000. The Committee notes that the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future submitted its final recommendations to the Secretary of Energy in January 2012. The 

Committee strongly supports these recommendations, and provides 

funding in this account for the Department to implement many of 

them in the short-term. Most notably, the Committee provides both 

statutory authority and funding for the Department to begin the 

processes to site, construct, and operate a consolidated storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Additionally, the Committee directs the Department to ensure that the 

public continues to have access to the Blue Ribbon Commission’s 

Web site and all records and documents therein. 

The Department of Energy’s failure to begin disposing of waste 

on January 31, 1998 has created a liability, based on the Standard 

Contracts signed by the Department and each utility operating a 

nuclear reactor. This liability is expected to exceed $20,000,000,000 

by 2020, and accruing an additional $500,000,000 for each year 

after 2020 that the Department has not accepted spent nuclear 

fuel. Although funding for these liabilities does not come from the 

Energy and Water appropriations bill, but is rather paid from the 

Judgment Fund in the Department of the Treasury, it is, in the 

end, the taxpayers that are severely penalized for the Federal Government’s inaction. This is an unacceptable outcome, and now that 

the Blue Ribbon Commission has provided recommendations, the 

Committee would be irresponsible in failing to act on them in this 

legislation. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.—The Committee provides $65,318,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies, the same 

as the budget request. Within available funds, the Committee supports multiscale physics-based modeling and simulation activities 

for engineering technology development of safety and waste depositions of nuclear materials. 

Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support.—The Committee provides $65,000,000 for Small Modular Reactor Licensing 

Technical Support, the same as the budget request. This is the second year of funding for a 5-year program capped at $452,000,000. 

The fiscal year 2012 bill appropriated $67,000,000. The Committee 

notes that the budget request level for fiscal year 2013 will require 
77 

the funding in fiscal years 2014–2016 to be just over $106,500,000 

in order to fully fund the program in 5 fiscal years. The Committee 

urges the Department to set aggressive milestones for this program 

and the program’s industry partners, and develop a strategy to 

track progress, meet milestones, and hold industry to its commitments. 

Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration.— The Committee provides $73,674,000 for Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Deployment, the same as the budget request. The Committee notes theoretical potential for new reactor 

concepts in general, and in particular very high temperature nuclear reactors [VHTR], but see little mid-term likelihood of such reactors being constructed in the United States. The current and projected low price of natural gas will continue to complicate the competitiveness of VHTRs in providing process heat for industrial applications. It is increasingly apparent that industry will not shoulder the cost or risk of constructing an advanced reactor alone and 

the current Federal budget climate makes it also unlikely that the 

Federal government will spend billions of dollars on such an undertaking. The goals and time-lines of the Reactor Concepts sub-program remain unclear. 

For the reasons above and given this year’s budget constraints, 

the Committee does not support continuing the Next Generation 

Nuclear Plant demonstration project at this time, and accordingly 

provides no funding for those activities. Additionally, the Committee does not provide funding for development of a public-private 

partnership or for studying a business case for the demonstration 

project. Any funding the Department provides for NGNP is limited 

to continuing qualification of TRISO fuel and ongoing research and 

development activities that started in prior fiscal years. The Committee provides the budget request for Light Water Sustainability. 

Under Advanced Reactor Concepts, the Committee is uncertain of 

the budget requests focus on two concepts and directs the Department to consider other reactor technologies as well in fiscal year 

2013. The Committee supports the research and development of advanced reactor concepts that have the potential to be safer and 

more cost effective than current designs, while also reducing waste 

production and the risk of nuclear proliferation. The Committee encourages the Department to award a portion of these funds competitively in order to assure that the most promising designs of private industry, the DOE laboratories and universities are advanced. 

Fuel Cycle Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $193,138,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development, 

including $40,378,000 for the Advanced Fuels program, the same 

as the budget request. The Committee is encouraged by the Department’s expedient implementation of the accident tolerant fuels 

development program, the goal of which is the development of 

meltdown-resistant nuclear fuels leading to reactor testing and utilization in 10 years. The Committee urges the Department to establish a long-range, integrated approach to this difficult and very 

important objective, including the establishment of relevant testing 

facilities and reliable milestones within its laboratories, and to 

place special technical emphasis and funding priority on highly innovative activities, such as its ceramic coated particle fuel effort, 
78 

that could significantly enhance the safety of present and future 

generations of Light Water Reactors. 

Section 312 in the bill establishes a pilot program under which 

the Department may site, construct, and operate at least one consolidated storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste subject to future authorization and appropriation. 

The Committee provides a $2,000,000 increase in program direction 

from within available funds to implement this authority. The Committee directs the Department to use $17,700,000 in unobligated, 

prior year funds appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The 

Committee directs the Department to solicit proposals for consolidated storage facilities within 120 days of enactment of this act. In 

evaluating proposals, the Department should give priority to novel 

concepts, including consolidated storage facilities proposed to be colocated with potential permanent repositories, given that current 

volumes of spent nuclear fuel now exceed the statutory limits established in section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for the 

first repository. The Committee expects that the Department will 

consider only proposals it receives for the nuclear waste pilot program, and encourages consideration of proposals developed in a cooperative manner with an applying entity and States, local jurisdictions, or affected Indian tribes. The Department should at every 

step consider the views of the States, local jurisdictions and affected Indian tribes, and should not expend resources to consider 

sites that are unlikely to achieve support of the host State, local 

jurisdictions, and affected Indian tribes. The Committee directs the 

Department to exercise this authority consistent with the recommendations in the Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report to the 

Secretary of Energy. The Committee notes that the Blue Ribbon 

Commission found that one or more consolidated storage facilities 

is required regardless of the ultimate location of a permanent repository. The Department currently lacks authority to conduct 

these activities. 

International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.—The Committee provides $3,000,000 for International Nuclear Energy Cooperation, the 

same as the budget request. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Radiological Facilities Management.—The Committee provides 

$66,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management. Within available funds, the Committee provides $15,000,000 for hot cells at 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In future budget requests, the 

Committee directs the Department to request sufficient funding for 

radiological infrastructure to maintain capabilities and regulatory 

compliance. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Idaho Facilities Management.—The Committee provides 

$152,000,000 for Idaho Facilities Management, the same as the 

budget request. Funding provided will support moving forward 

with both the Advanced Post Irradiation Examination Facility and 

the restart of the Transient Reactor Experiment and Test Facility. 
79 

Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security.—The Committee provides $93,000,000 for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security, the 

same as the budget request. The Committee supports transferring 

this sub-account from Other Defense Activities to Nuclear Energy. 

Program Direction.—The Committee provides $92,015,000 for 

program direction. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. 1 $534,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 420,575,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 460,575,000 

1Does not include rescission of $187,000,000 under Public Law 112–331. 

The Committee recommends $460,575,000 for Fossil Energy Research and Development. This is $40,000,000 more than the budget 

request. 

CCS and Power Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$301,622,000 for CCS and Power Systems. Within the available 

funding, Advanced Energy Systems is funded at $80,946,000. Of 

this funding, $25,000,000 is to continue the Department’s research, 

development, and demonstration of solid oxide fuel cell systems, 

which have the potential to increase the efficiency of clean coal 

power generation systems, to create new opportunities for the efficient use of natural gas, and to contribute significantly to the development of alternative-fuel vehicles. Further, within Gasification 

Systems, a subprogram of Advanced Energy Systems, the recommendation includes $8,000,000, the same as provided in fiscal 

year 2012, to continue activities improving advanced air separation 

technologies. 

The United States is experiencing a significant increase in natural gas production and use in the United States. The Committee 

is aware that some of the research and development work being 

conducted within the CCS and Power Systems programs for coal 

are also potentially applicable to natural gas. The solid oxide fuel 

cell systems are an example of research and development that is 

applicable to both coal and natural gas power generation. The Department is directed to use funds from this program for both coal 

and natural gas research and development as it determines to be 

merited. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $120,000,000 

for program direction, which will remain available until September 

30, 2014. 

Other Programs.—The Committee recommends $13,294,000 for 

Plant and Capital Equipment; $5,897,000 for Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration; and $700,000 for Special Recruitment Programs. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to continue the Risk Based Data Management System. 

The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for natural gas technologies. Of this amount, $12,000,000 is for interagency research 

and development initiatives and $10,000,000 is for ongoing methane hydrates research and development. 
80 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $14,909,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 14,909,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,909,000 

The Committee recommends $14,909,000 for Naval Petroleum 

and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request. 

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... $15,579,815 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,579,815 

The Committee recommends $15,579,815 for the Elk Hills School 

Lands Fund, the same as the budget request. This is the final payment of the settlement agreement. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $192,704,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 195,609,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 195,609,000 

The Committee recommends $195,609,000 for the operation of 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

The Committee notes that the Department has continued to ignore the statutory directive in Public Law 111–8 to submit a report 

to Congress regarding the effects of expanding the Reserve on the 

domestic petroleum market by April 27, 2009. The Department has 

not yet submitted the report, and continues to fail to meet other 

congressionally mandated deadlines without explanation or cause. 

Although now nearly 31⁄2 years delayed, the information requested 

in the report continues to be pertinent to policy decisions, and the 

Secretary is directed to submit the report as expeditiously as possible to the Committee. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ¥$500,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥291,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee does not recommend the proposed rescission of 

$291,000,000 in balances from the Strategic Petroleum Account. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. 1 $10,119,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 2 10,119,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2 10,119,000 

1Does not include rescission of $100,000,000 under Public Law 112–331. 

2Does not include proposed rescission of $6,000,000. 

The Committee recommends $10,119,000 for the Northeast Home 

Heating Oil Reserve as requested. The budget request proposes, 

and the Committee supports, the rescission of $6,000,000. 
81 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $105,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 116,365,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 116,365,000 

The Committee recommends $116,365,000 for the Energy Information Administration. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $235,721,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 198,506,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 228,506,000 

The Committee’s recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup is $228,506,000. 

Reprogramming Control Levels.—In fiscal year 2013, the Environmental Management program may transfer funding between operating expense funded projects within the controls listed below 

using guidance contained in the Department’s budget execution 

manual (DOE M 135.1–1A, chapter IV). All capital construction 

line item projects remain separate controls from the operating 

projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of congressional response. The Committee recommends the following reprogramming control points for 

fiscal year 2013: 

—Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning; 

—Gaseous Diffusion Plants; 

—Small Sites; and 

—West Valley Demonstration Project. 

Internal Reprogramming Authority.—Headquarters Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one time, between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety risks, gain 

cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a program or project 

is not increased or decreased by more than $2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. 

The reprogramming authority—either formal or internal—may 

not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding levels 

for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress 

in the act or report. The Committee on Appropriations in the 

House and Senate must be notified within 30 days after the use of 

the internal reprogramming authority. 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning.—The Committee recommends $2,704,000. 

Gaseous Diffusion Plants.—The Committee recommends 

$90,109,000. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $87,831,000. In response to a lack of progress on addressing existing contamination 

and seismic deficiencies within buildings that are located in heavily 

used areas at some Department national laboratories, the Department is directed to use additional funding to improve health and 

safety by cleaning up existing contamination and improving seismic 

standards of buildings within Department laboratory grounds. 
82 

The Committee also encourages the Department to explore remediation efforts at small sites which can demonstrate new models for 

cleanup performed by private sector and third party organizations, 

such as laboratories and universities, which could save substantial 

resources compared to the traditional agency-led cleanup model 

and result in faster cleanup without compromising public safety. 

The Committee urges the Department to budget for such cleanup 

models. 

West Valley Demonstration Project.—The Committee recommends 

$47,862,000. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $472,930,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 442,493,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 442,493,000 

The Committee recommends $442,493,000 for Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning activities, the same 

as the budget request. 

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $4,889,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 4,992,052,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,909,000,000 

The Committee recommends $4,909,000,000, a decrease of 

$83,052,000 below the budget request, for the Office of Science. The 

Committee believes this level of funding will maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology during a time of significant funding 

constraints. Investments in basic research will lead to new and improved energy technologies and the construction and operation of 

new, large-scale scientific facilities will be vitally important for 

many areas of science as well as private industry, such as pharmaceutical and aerospace companies. Funding for advanced computing 

will also position the United States to maintain international leadership in scientific computing and simulation over the next decade. 

Office of Science Priorities.—The Committee continues to support 

the three highest priorities for the Office of Science: (1) the discovery and design of new materials for the generation, storage, and 

use of energy; (2) better understanding of microorganisms and 

plants for improved biofuels production; and (3) the development 

and deployment of more powerful computing capabilities to take 

advantage of modeling and simulation to advance energy technologies and maintain U.S. economic competitiveness. 

Maintaining Program Balance for Lower-Priority Activities.—The 

Committee commends the Office of Science for identifying clear priorities and directing limited funding toward those priorities. However, the Committee is concerned by the Office of Science’s lack of 

strategic guidance and prioritization among lower priority research 

activities, such as fusion energy science, nuclear physics, and highenergy physics. The Committee is concerned that the scope of work, 

which includes research, operations of existing facilities, and new 

construction, has not changed while the budget for these programs 

is decreasing. The Committee believes the Office of Science must 
83 

evaluate the highest-priority needs for these programs in a fiscally 

constrained environment and make difficult decisions, including delaying construction projects and terminating research activities, to 

advance these fields of science in areas where the United States 

can lead and be competitive with other countries. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $1,712,091,000, a decrease of 

$87,501,000 below the budget request, for Basic Energy Sciences. 

Of these funds, $110,703,000 is provided for construction activities 

as requested, which includes $47,203,000 for the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at Brookhaven National Laboratory and 

$63,500,000 for the Linac Coherent Light Source-II at SLAC. Of 

the remaining funds for Basic Energy Sciences, $692,666,000 is for 

research activities in materials science and engineering and chemical sciences, geosciences, and biosciences, and $908,725,000, which 

is $49,698,000 above fiscal year 2012 enacted levels, is to increase 

operating times to near optimum levels of world-class scientific 

user facilities. The Committee encourages DOE to continue research and development activities that will lead to even more powerful light source facilities, which are a key part of the nation’s innovation ecosystem and critical to America’s international economic 

competitiveness. The Committee also encourages DOE to explore 

the suitability of using existing U.S. synchotron radiation facilities, 

including non-DOE user facilities, at universities to serve as training grounds for beamline designers, machine physicists, and other 

users. 

Within the research funds provided, the Committee recommends 

up to $100,000,000 to support the 46 Energy Frontier Research 

Centers, $24,237,000 for the Fuels from Sunlight Hub, and 

$24,237,000 for the Batteries and Energy Storage Hub. Up to 

$10,000,000 shall be available for materials and chemistry by design to improve predictive modeling and accelerate material discovery for energy applications. The Committee encourages the continuation of catalysis research and encourages partnerships with 

universities to support research and development of novel device 

materials for alternative energy applications. 

The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

[EPSCoR] program was created by Congress over concerns about 

the uneven distribution of Federal research and development 

grants. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for EPSCoR and 

encourages DOE to sponsor a workshop to examine the geographic 

distribution of its budget, how best to utilize states at the forefront 

of energy production, and ensure that they are included in important policy and research initiatives. The Committee also encourages DOE to continue funding to support research and development 

needs of graduate and post-graduate science programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 

Within the funds provided for scientific user facilities, the Com- mittee recommends $25,000,000 to support early operations of the 

National Synchrotron Light Source-II at Brookhaven National Laboratory and $32,000,000 for Major Items of Equipment, which includes $20,000,000 to continue the upgrade to the Advanced Photon 

Source at Argonne National Laboratory and $12,000,000 for activi-
84 

ties that add beamlines to the National Synchrotron Light SourceII at Brookhaven National Laboratory. 

The President’s budget request notes the cancellation of the 

power upgrades project for the Spallation Neutron Source’s second 

target station. Given the large number of construction projects currently underway in the Office of Science, the Committee encourages the Office of Science to consider the second target station as 

a long term planning item and include it in the Office of Science’s 

phased construction schedule for major construction projects in the 

outyears. 

No funding is provided for new collaborative efforts with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that would expand 

the scope of work of Energy Frontier Research Centers and divert 

funding from operations of facilities. No funding is provided to expand mesoscale research efforts. While the Committee understands 

that there may be merit in pursuing mesoscale science to advance 

future energy technologies, DOE has not provided sufficient justification for a significant new investment. The Committee directs 

the Office of Science to work with the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee to develop a plan that can be presented to Congress for mesoscale science that identifies the scientific needs for 

pursuing this research, what facilities are available to effectively 

pursue this research, and possible measureable outcomes. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $625,347,000 as requested for Biological and Environmental Research. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $309,773,000 for biological systems science and 

$315,574,000 for climate and environmental sciences. 

Within the funds provided for biological systems science, the 

Committee recommends $75,000,000 as requested for the Bioenergy 

Research Centers. The Committee supports the continuation of the 

3 research centers and is encouraged by some of the early successes 

related to developing next-generation bioenergy crops, improving 

biomass deconstruction with enzymes and microbes, and advancing 

biofuels synthesis. The Committee is also encouraged that in the 

last 5 years the Bioenergy Research Centers have released 914 

publications and 237 invention disclosures that resulted in 115 patent applications and 51 patent application licenses. The Committee 

encourages the Office of Science to continue investing in synthetic 

biology tools and biodesign technologies to accelerate the cost-effective production of next generation biofuels that could serve as secure, national energy resources. 

The Committee commends the Department of Energy’s National 

Laboratories and the National Institutes of Health for their collaboration on research and development projects. These collaborations 

have resulted in advances in bioinformatics and breakthroughs in 

atomic resolution structural biology. The Committee strongly encourages the Department of Energy to continue planning, discussions, and funding activities with the National Institutes of Health 

to further research and development efforts. The Committee understands that Radiological Sciences is transitioning from its historical 

focus on nuclear medicine research and applications for health to 

research focused on metabolic imaging of plants and microbes rel-
85 

evant to biofuels production. However, the Committee is concerned 

that the Office of Science has not coordinated research activities 

with other Federal agencies to continue nuclear medicine research 

with human application. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 to continue nuclear medicine research with 

human application unless the Office of Science can demonstrate 

this research is being continued more effectively and efficiently by 

another Federal agency. 

Within the funds provided for climate and environmental 

sciences, the Committee recommends $47,700,000 as requested for 

the operation of the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory 

at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The Committee also recommends $11,700,000 as requested for the Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment in the Tropics, which will be the first and only 

U.S. experiment in the tropics to help predict climate change, reduce uncertainty, and improve predictive modeling. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $455,593,000 as requested for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Within these funds, the 

Committee recommends $68,500,000 as requested for the exascale 

initiative to spur U.S. innovation and increase the country’s ability 

to address critical national challenges. 

The Committee also recommends $94,000,000 for the Oak Ridge 

Leadership Computing Facility to move forward with upgrades to 

its Cray XT5 with a peak capability of more than 20 petaflops, 

$67,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility to 

move forward with upgrades to its IBM Blue Gene/P systems with 

a peak capability of 10 petaflops, $68,105,000 for the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center facility at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory to support operations and infrastructure expenses for the new Computational Research and Theory 

Building, and $35,000,000 to help support extended deployment of 

a 100 gigabit-per-second network to the national laboratories. Having high end open science computing will not only help the United 

States maintain leadership in computing and develop breakthroughs that will improve the everyday lives of our citizens 

through new technologies available to them, but will also support 

breakthroughs in the other research areas in the Office of Science. 

Research programs such as fusion energy science, biofuels, and materials by design all stand to benefit from investments in open 

science computer modeling and simulation. 

The Committee recommends that up to $8,000,000 shall be available to pursue data-intensive science, but the Committee directs 

the Office of Science to develop a plan that explains the extent of 

the problem, how research efforts will address data analysis problems, and the funding needed to overcome these data challenges. 

The Committee encourages the Office of Science to continue 

working with small- and medium-sized manufacturers and businesses to educate them about the benefits of using high performance computing for modeling and simulations to solve tough manufacturing and engineering challenges and reduce development 

costs. The Committee also encourages the Office of Science to sim-
86 

plify software and codes so a broader set of businesses can take advantage of these powerful tools. 

HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $781,521,000, an increase of 

$5,000,000, for High-Energy Physics. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $25,000,000 as requested for the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment, which includes $20,000,000 for construction and $5,000,000 for other project costs. The Committee 

also recommends $26,000,000 for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment, which includes $10,000,000 for research and development and $16,000,000 for project engineering and design. The Committee is concerned about proposed cost estimates for the Long 

Baseline Neutrino Experiment and encourages the Office of Science 

to consider all alternatives to reduce the cost of the experiment 

while still meeting the highest priority scientific goals. The Committee recommends that $730,521,000 of the remaining funds be 

used for research in the energy, intensity, and cosmic frontiers. 

Within these funds, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to 

support minimal, sustaining operations at the Homestake Mine in 

South Dakota. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $539,938,000, an increase of 

$13,000,000 above the budget request, for Nuclear Physics. The 

Committee is concerned about the lack of strategic direction for nuclear physics and the inability of the program to adapt to a changing budget environment. The Committee believes that the budget 

request puts at risk all major research and facility operations activities without significantly advancing nuclear physics goals. For 

example, the budget request reduces the operating times of two 

major facilities—a 50 percent reduction in operating time for the 

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory 

and a 15 percent reduction at the Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System at Argonne National Laboratory. At the same time, 

the budget request does not provide sufficient funds to advance the 

new Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State University, 

and the current construction project to upgrade the Continuous 

Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Laboratory is at risk of falling behind schedule. The Committee directs the Office of Science to charge the Nuclear Physics 

Advisory Committee to submit a report by December 1, 2012 to the 

Office of Science and the Committee that proposes research and development activities for nuclear physics under a flat budget scenario over the next 5 fiscal years. The report should specifically 

identify priorities for facility construction and facility decommissioning to meet those priorities. 

To address some of these concerns, the Committee recommends 

$40,572,000 in construction funds for the Continuous Electron 

Beam Accelerator Facility, which the Nuclear Physics Advisory 

Committee concluded was the highest priority for the Nation’s nuclear physics program. The Committee also recommends 

$30,000,000 for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, which includes 

funding to complete design and engineering work and, if the Office 
87 

of Science approves a performance baseline, site preparation activities. The Committee also recommends $163,600,000 for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider to maintain 20 weeks of operations. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $398,324,000 as requested for Fusion Energy Sciences. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $150,000,000 as requested for the U.S. contribution to 

ITER. Similar to the Nuclear Physics program, the Committee is 

concerned by the lack of strategic direction for the fusion energy 

program. The Committee understands that the budget request provides a $45,000,000 increase to the U.S. ITER contribution but 

even with the increase, the U.S. contribution is still $50,000,000 

short of the project plan. The Committee also understands that the 

increase to the U.S. contribution came at the expense of the domestic fusion program. The Committee is concerned that additional 

cuts to the domestic fusion energy program may undermine U.S. 

advances in fusion and the U.S. ability to take advantage of scientific developments of the ITER project. 

The Office of Science believes that it can take advantage of international programs and facilities to build and maintain U.S. expertise in fusion energy sciences. However, a February 2012 Fusion 

Energy Sciences Advisory Committee report cautioned that international facilities in Asia and Europe will not be operating for several more years and international collaborations cannot come at 

the expense of a domestic research program that can benefit from 

ITER. The Committee directs the Office of Science to assess the impact to the domestic fusion energy sciences workforce and the ability of the United States to take advantage of ITER to advance fusion energy before recommending any further cuts to the domestic 

program. The Committee also directs the Office of Science to assess 

alternatives to participating in the ITER project, including reducing contributions to the project, and the impact of withdrawing 

from the project, if necessary, to maintain domestic capabilities. 

Further, the Committee directs the Office of Science to include 

a project data sheet with details of all project costs until the completion of the project for ITER in the fiscal year 2014 budget submission. The Committee understands that DOE provides funding 

for ITER as a Major Item of Equipment rather than a line item 

construction project, which would be consistent with DOE Order 

413.3B. However, the Committee feels that a multi-billion dollar 

project, especially of this scale and complexity, should be treated as 

a construction project and follow DOE Order 413.3B guidance. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $117,790,000 as requested to support infrastructure activities. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $83,000,000, a decrease of 

$1,000,000, for Safeguards and Security activities. The Committee 

encourages the Office of Safeguards and Security to make 

cybersecurity its highest priority. The Committee is aware that in 
88 

mid-2011, three Office of Science national laboratories were the 

targets of cyber attacks. Fortunately, the attacks caused little disruption to lab activities, but mission impact and associated costs 

could have been significant with more sophisticated attacks to mission critical networks. The Committee supports investments to improve the Office of Science’s security program to minimize the likelihood and impact of future attacks. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee provides $190,000,000, a decrease of $12,551,000 

below the budget request, for the Office of Science Program Direction. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $14,500,000 as requested. The Committee supports the Office of Science’s efforts in assessing whether 

science workforce development programs meet established goals by 

collecting and analyzing data, including pre- and post-participation 

surveys and longitudinal participant surveys. The Committee commends the Office of Science for conducting the first longitudinal 

study by starting with the Science Undergraduate Lab Internship 

program and encourages the Office of Science to continue these efforts and expand them to other programs. The Committee believes 

this data is critical to determine whether these program are successful in attracting students to science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics careers relevant to the Department of Energy. 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $275,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 350,000,000 

Committee Recommendation ................................................................ 312,000,000 

The Committee recommends $312,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy [ARPA–E] which is the authorized 

level under the America COMPETES Act. ARPA–E is responsible 

for funding high-risk research and development projects to meet 

long-term energy challenges. The Committee is encouraged that, as 

an early indicator of success, 11 projects, which received 

$40,000,000 from ARPA–E, have secured more than $200,000,000 

in outside private capital investment to further develop these technologies. The Committee encourages DOE to continue tracking 

these projects to demonstrate how Federal investments have developed more energy efficient technologies and potentially new industries. 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $38,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 38,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 38,000,000 
89 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ¥$38,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥38,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥38,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends $38,000,000 in funding for the Loan 

Guarantee Program. This funding is offset by $38,000,000 in receipts from loan guarantee applicants. The Committee does not recommend any additional loan authority in fiscal year 2013. 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $6,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 9,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,000,000 

The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $237,623,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 230,783,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 220,783,000 

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ¥$111,623,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥108,188,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥108,188,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $126,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 122,595,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 112,595,000 

The Committee recommends $220,783,000 for Department Administration. The Office of the Secretary of Energy shall ensure 

that it is a full participant in the Administration’s efforts to identify the best locations to site interstate transmission lines to maximize access to the nation’s most significant renewable energy resources. Additionally, the Department is directed to collect, compile, and maintain data on the efforts of the tax code on meeting 

the nation’s energy challenges, such as improving energy security, 

pollution reduction, and improving energy technology innovation 

and competitiveness, in a manner that will be useful during the tax 

reform debates. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $42,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 43,468,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,468,000 
90 

The Committee recommends $43,468,000 for the Office of the Inspector General. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $11,510,886,000 for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], an increase of 

$510,886,000 above fiscal year 2012 and an increase of 

$1,623,859,000, or 16.4 percent, compared to fiscal year 2010. The 

Committee has provided significant increases to the NNSA budget 

over the last 3 fiscal years to respond to important national security imperatives, which include accelerating efforts to secure all 

vulnerable nuclear materials by December 2013 and modernizing 

the nuclear weapons stockpile to sustain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear arsenal without testing. 

Poor Project Management.—The Committee is concerned about 

NNSA’s record of inadequate project management and oversight. 

The Committee is worried that large funding increases will make 

NNSA more vulnerable to waste, abuse, duplication, and mismanagement if NNSA does not take the necessary steps to address 

project management weaknesses. All of NNSA’s major construction 

projects exceed the initial cost estimates. For example, the cost of 

a new uranium facility at Y–12, known as the Uranium Processing 

Facility, has grown from $600,000,000 to $6,000,000,000—ten 

times more expensive than originally projected. In addition, most 

of NNSA’s major construction projects are behind schedule. For example, a new facility at Savannah River, known as the MOX Fuel 

Fabrication Facility, is nearing completion but is 14 years behind 

schedule. An even greater concern is NNSA’s inability to adequately assess alternatives, including the use of existing facilities, 

before embarking on multi-billion dollar projects. For example, 

NNSA spent $700,000,000 over the last 13 years to design a plutonium disposition facility at Savannah River only to terminate the 

project in fiscal year 2012 and determine that existing facilities 

could meet mission requirements. 

The Committee is concerned that NNSA has not implemented a 

number of recommendations made by the U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO] aimed at improving NNSA’s project management that could have avoided project management mistakes. 

The Committee directs NNSA to implement the following recommendations and report to GAO every 6 months beginning on October 1, 2012 on the status of implementing these recommendations until GAO validates that the recommendations have been 

fully implemented: (1) NNSA should assess the risks, costs, and 

schedule needs for all military requirements prior to beginning a 

life extension program [LEP] and developing realistic cost baselines 

and schedules that acknowledge identified risks and reflect sufficient contingency for risk mitigation; (2) NNSA should conduct 

independent cost estimates for all major projects and revise its cost 

estimating guidance to include reconciling differences between the 

results of independent and other cost estimates; and (3) NNSA 

should conduct rigorous analyses of alternatives to justify selected 

project options. 
91 

GAO Study on NNSA Project Management.—Owing to the Committee’s ongoing concerns with the effectiveness of and accountability for project management at NNSA, including construction 

projects and life extension programs, the Committee seeks a root 

cause assessment of project management. Prior reports from the 

GAO on individual programs and projects have provided evidence 

of schedule slips, significant cost growth, reduced scope, and failure 

to adequately assess alternatives. Many of the risks that contributed to these outcomes could have been or were in fact anticipated 

early in project design. As GAO has noted in numerous reports, 

adequate front-end planning and the development of high-quality 

cost and schedule estimates may help avoid the pitfalls that 

NNSA’s projects have frequently experienced. To assess NNSA’s 

management of projects in the early stages of project design, the 

Committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct an analysis 

with recommendations for improvement by May 1, 2013 of (1) the 

effectiveness of the process by which NNSA conducts analyses of 

alternatives prior to project starts; (2) how NNSA plans for and 

executes its projects’ design phases prior to the establishment of a 

cost and schedule baseline; (3) the roles, responsibilities, and accountability of Federal project directors in the early stages of major 

projects; and (4) the impact of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board reviews on the cost, schedule, and scope of projects. In each 

of these areas, the analysis shall consider NNSA’s compliance with 

Departmental orders, directives, and other guidance applicable to 

project management. 

Report on Changes to Cost, Schedule, and Scope of Major 

Projects.—The Committee is concerned that NNSA is not communicating changes in cost, schedule, and scope in a transparent and 

timely manner. For example, a March 2012 GAO study found that 

NNSA, to avoid more cost increases, would have eliminated certain 

critical capabilities, such as plutonium-related mission for homeland security and nonproliferation, that were part of the original 

project scope for the new plutonium facility at Los Alamos. These 

changes were not communicated to the Committee. The Committee 

directs NNSA to submit a report every 6 months on October 1 and 

April 1, with the first report due on October 1, 2012, on the status 

of major projects, such as construction projects and life extension 

programs, which are estimated to cost a minimum of $750,000,000. 

The report shall include, among other things, the name of the 

project, a brief description of the mission need, a brief summary of 

project status, the baseline cost or expected cost range and contingencies, expected completion date, scope of work, and an explanation of changes, if any, to cost, schedule, scope, or contingencies. 

JASON Study on Surveillance Program.—According to NNSA’s 

2011 Strategic Plan, NNSA will complete a transformation of the 

weapons stockpile surveillance program by 2014 to better detect 

initial design and production defects for life extended weapons, materials aging defects, and predictive performance trends for the enduring stockpile. The Committee understands that this change in 

the surveillance program involves greater emphasis on more extensive testing of weapons at the component level to improve early 

identification of defects due to aging and testing fewer weapons at 

a system-level. However, the Committee is concerned about the 
92 

consequences of this change on annual assessments to the safety, 

security, and reliability of the stockpile. The Committee directs the 

JASON group of scientific advisers, which has not reviewed the 

surveillance program in more than a decade, to submit to the Committee by April 1, 2013 an assessment of NNSA’s surveillance program. The assessment should determine whether NNSA’s changes 

to its surveillance program raise any significant problems in the 

annual assessment of the stockpile and whether NNSA’s approach 

is appropriate for a smaller and aging stockpile. 

Plutonium Mission.—The Committee understands that construction of a new plutonium facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, known as the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility [CMRR], has been delayed by at least 5 

years. 

However, the Committee is troubled that NNSA has failed to put 

forth an alternative plutonium strategy. While it has identified 

funds for some aspects of plutonium research and sustainment requirements, NNSA does not have a comprehensive plutonium plan 

including research and surveillance requirements needed to support pit reuse, transportation, storage, and security. As GAO reported in March 2012, NNSA decided to de-inventory plutonium 

from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before determining 

whether CMRR or other facilities could accommodate the research, 

storage, and environmental testing capabilities that Livermore possesses. In addition, NNSA is focusing the design of CMRR strictly 

on meeting stockpile requirements, without fully considering DOE’s 

and other Federal agencies’ missions involving plutonium that need 

to be accommodated in such areas as nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear forensics, nuclear counterterrorism, and homeland security. 

The Committee directs NNSA to submit a comprehensive plutonium strategy by October 15, 2012 that assesses needed plutonium 

research requirements for nuclear weapons stockpile activities and 

other plutonium missions that details any modifications to existing 

or planned facilities or any new facilities that will be needed to 

support these missions, and the funding and time needed to implement the new strategy, including costs and schedules to upgrade 

existing facilities, elevate or maintain security, and transport materials. NNSA’s comprehensive plutonium strategy should be incorporated into future Stockpile Stewardship Management Plans consistent with the reporting requirements of section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. 

While NNSA works toward this plan, the Committee supports efforts to sustain pit sustainment and pit manufacturing capabilities 

and move toward a new strategy, including $35,000,000 to accelerate material stabilization, repackaging, and de-inventory of the 

PF–4 vault, $141,685,000 for plutonium sustainment activities at 

Los Alamos National Laboratory, $8,889,000 to continue upgrades 

at PF–4, and $9,000,000 for pit reuse studies. The Committee encourages NNSA to use available funds to procure and install additional analytical chemistry equipment to maximize the authorized 

use of nuclear material in the new Radiological Laboratory, and to 

initiate facility start up activities to enable full operation of Radiological Laboratory capabilities. In order to ensure continuity of key 

plutonium capabilities, the Committee also encourages NNSA to 
93 

use available funds to accelerate the relocation of sample preparation activities from CMR to PF–4 and procuring and installing material characterization equipment in PF–4. 

Domestic Uranium Enrichment Research, Development, and Demonstration Project.—The Committee recommends authorizing the Secretary of Energy to transfer up to $150,000,000 in NNSA funds 

to further develop and demonstrate the technical feasibility of domestic national security-related enrichment technologies. The 

transfer authority shall be contingent on the Secretary of Energy 

securing $150,000,000 in fiscal year 2012 to support the first phase 

of the research, development, and demonstration project as well securing a new management structure and obtaining intellectual 

property and other rights to protect taxpayers against possible 

technical failure. The Committee recommends transfer authority 

across all of NNSA because the primary justification for investing 

in indigenous uranium enrichment technology is to provide a secure fuel supply of low enriched uranium for tritium production— 

a program funded under nuclear weapons activities—and to meet 

future needs of highly enriched uranium for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines—a program funded under naval reactors. 

Improving Relationship Between NNSA and Nuclear Weapons 

Laboratories.—The Committee is concerned about recent findings 

in a February 2012 National Research Council study that concluded that the overall management relationship between NNSA 

and its national security laboratories is dysfunctional. The Committee recommends that NNSA and the laboratories identify and 

eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic functions that affect the quality of science and engineering at the labs and detract from primary 

mission goals. The elimination of these functions shall not undermine operational goals related to safety, security, environmental 

responsibility and fiscal integrity. The NNSA shall notify the Committee of the functions that are to be eliminated. According to the 

National Research Council, many of the bureaucratic problems are 

within the power of the labs to address or driven by governance 

strategies that can be changed. The Committee also recommends 

that NNSA establish a technical advisory committee to resolve 

technical disputes on science and engineering matters between 

NNSA and the laboratories. 

Joint Institutes.—The Committee is encouraged by NNSA’s efforts to develop joint institutes with universities to help develop 

the future NNSA workforce and create learning and research opportunities for universities. The Committee directs NNSA to provide a report 90 days after enactment of this Act on its work with 

universities, including the goals of the partnerships, benefits to the 

taxpayer, and budget requirements. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $7,233,997,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 7,577,341,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,577,341,000 

The Committee recommends $7,577,341,000 for National Nuclear 

Security Administration’s [NNSA] Weapons Activities, an increase 

of $343,344,000 above fiscal year 2012. The Committee rec-
94 

ommendation would fund all of the highest-priority activities for 

nuclear weapons modernization, including continuing production of 

refurbished W76 warheads, continuing design and engineering 

work for the B61 life extension program, continuing the life extension study for the W78, replacing critical components, such as neutron generators and gas transfer systems, on many of the currently 

deployed weapons, sustaining funding for a strengthened surveillance program, and accelerating construction of a new uranium facility at Y–12. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommends $2,078,274,000, which is 

$10,000,000 below the request, for directed stockpile work. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$543,931,000 as requested for Life Extension Programs. 

B61 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$339,000,000, a decrease of $30,000,000 below the request, due to 

carry over balances. The Committee is concerned about significant 

delays in completing Phase 6.2A activities and establishing a validated and precise cost, schedule, and scope baseline. Without a 

validated cost, schedule, and scope baseline, the Committee cannot 

evaluate the entire life-cycle costs of the program, assess the impact on other weapons activities and proposed offsets to pay for increasing costs for the program, determine whether the proposed 

schedule meets military requirements, or ensure that any modifications to the weapon do not impact its safety, security, and reliability. The Committee directs that no funding be used for B61 life 

extension program activities until NNSA submits to the Committee 

a validated cost, schedule, and scope baseline. 

W76 Life Extension Program.—The Committee is concerned 

about a significant funding decrease for a program that is refurbishing a weapon that makes up the largest share of our nuclear 

deterrent on the most survivable leg of the Triad. The fiscal year 

2013 budget request and future funding projections would cause a 

3 year delay in completing this program, increase costs, and impact 

the Navy’s operations. In addition, the shift in funding to support 

the B61 is not fully justified because the B61 life extension program is behind schedule and will not be able to efficiently spend 

the requested amount. For these reasons, the Committee recommends $204,931,000, an increase of $30,000,000, for the W76 life 

extension program. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee recommends $590,409,000 as 

requested. Of these funds, at least $181,000,000 shall be used for 

surveillance activities. Within these funds, the Committee also recommends $76,590,000, as requested, for the W78 life extension 

Phase 6.2/2A study and $59,662,000, as requested, for the W88 Alt 

370 program. 

Weapons Dismantlement.—The Committee recommends 

$51,265,000 as requested. The Committee commends NNSA for 

completing dismantlements of both the W62 and B53 one year 

ahead of schedule. The Committee encourages NNSA to continue 

this record of success for future weapons systems scheduled for dismantlement. 
95 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee recommends $892,669,000, a 

decrease of $10,000,000 below the request. Within these funds, at 

least $57,000,000 shall be used to support surveillance activities. 

Also within these funds, the Committee recommends $199,632,000 

for research and development certification and safety activities, of 

which at least $30,000,000 shall be used to prepare for the next 

Gemini experiment and plutonium experiments on JASPER at the 

Nevada Nuclear Security Site. 

The Committee is concerned about significant increases to the 

Production Support Account. Production Support represents a base 

manufacturing capability and is relatively insensitive to major 

shifts in activities, such as life extension programs, dismantlement, 

and surveillance activities. However, the budget requests over the 

last several fiscal years have included significant increases for Production Support. The Committee directs NNSA to provide additional information in future budget justifications to explain these 

increasing costs. 

CAMPAIGNS

The Committee recommends $1,710,770,000, an increase of 

$20,000,000 above the request, for NNSA Campaigns. 

Science Campaign.—The Committee recommends $350,104,000 

as requested. Within these funds, at least $34,000,000 shall be 

used at Sandia’s Z facility to continue critical plutonium and other 

physics experiments to support the stockpile stewardship program 

and improve the experimental capability of Z with special nuclear 

materials. 

Engineering Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$150,571,000 as requested. The Committee is concerned that the 

core surveillance program and the enhanced surveillance campaign 

are not properly integrated. One of the stated goals of NNSA’s 2011 

Strategic Plan is to have a weapons stockpile surveillance program 

that can detect materials aging defects and predictive performance 

trends by 2014. According to a February 2012 GAO assessment of 

the surveillance program, NNSA will not be able to meet this goal 

if the core surveillance program does not take advantage of new 

technologies and approaches developed by the enhanced surveillance campaign, and the research goals of the enhanced surveillance campaign are not tied to specific mission needs. The Committee directs NNSA to complete a corrective action plan, as recommended by GAO, as expeditiously as possible, to better integrate 

these two programs and establish metrics to measure progress in 

its implementation. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign.—The Committee recommends $460,000,000 as requested. 

The Committee understands the importance of the National Ignition Facility [NIF] and supports NNSA’s efforts to ensure the long 

term viability of the facility when the National Ignition Campaign 

ends. The Committee encourages NNSA to work closely with the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to help manage the required full transition of the facility to the laboratory’s standard 

cost accounting practices. The Committee directs NNSA, with congressional notification to the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees, to use up to $140,000,000 of Lawrence Livermore Na-
96 

tional Laboratory’s internal additional direct purchasing power— 

generated by the overall lowering of the laboratory’s ‘‘Blended 

Rate’’ resulting from NIF’s transition away from a Self Constructed 

Asset Pool indirect rate and reduced management fee—to increase 

the level of the laboratory’s Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities funds dedicated to supporting NIF. The Committee recommends that NNSA move the NIF operating budget to the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities budget line, which would be 

consistent with the facility’s transition to regular operations and 

how other facilities are funded. The Committee also recommends 

that NNSA consider alternatives to operating the facility 24 hours 

a day, 7 days a week. 

Also within the funds for inertial confinement fusion, at least 

$62,000,000 and $55,000,000 shall be used for inertial confinement 

fusion activities at the University of Rochester’s Omega facility and 

Sandia National Laboratory’s Z facility, respectively. The Committee also recommends at least $5,000,000 as requested for the 

Naval Research Laboratory to continue operating laser facilities focused on laser plasma interactions, target hydrodynamics, materials, and advanced ignition concepts. 

The Committee remains concerned about NIF’s ability to achieve 

ignition—the primary purpose of constructing the facility—by the 

end of fiscal year 2012 when the National Ignition Campaign ends 

and the facility is to transition to regular ignition operations and 

pursue broad scientific applications. The Committee directs NNSA 

to establish an independent advisory committee as soon as possible 

to help set a strategic direction for inertial confinement fusion and 

high-energy density physics research and determine how best to 

use current facilities to advance this scientific field. If NIF does not 

achieve ignition by the end of fiscal year 2012 using a cryogenically 

layered deuterium and tritium target that produces a neutron yield 

with a gain greater than 1, the Committee directs NNSA to submit 

a report by November 30, 2012 that (1) explains the scientific and 

technical barriers to achieving ignition; (2) the steps NNSA will 

take to achieve ignition with a revised schedule; and (3) the impact 

on the stockpile stewardship program. 

To meet the complex and increased mission requirements of the 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and Science Campaigns at a period of 

constrained funding, the Committee urges the Department to continue its activities to ensure a multiple vendor base capable of costeffectively developing and fabricating the full range of targets for 

inertial confinement fusion facilities that support the stockpile 

stewardship program. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing.—The Committee recommends $620,000,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above the request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $69,000,000 

for activities associated with the exascale initiative, such as targeted research and development efforts with major vendors and advanced memory research and development activities. 

Readiness Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$130,095,000 as requested. The Committee is concerned about securing sufficient quantities of unencumbered uranium fuel for tritium production in Tennessee Valley Authority reactors. For technical or economic reasons, indigenous U.S. enrichment technologies 
97 

may not be available in the future to supply low enriched uranium 

for tritium production. For this reason, the Committee directs 

NNSA to submit a report by February 1, 2013 to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations that describes current supplies of low enriched uranium for tritium production, low enriched 

uranium supply options, and the costs of these alternatives. The 

Committee also recommends eliminating this campaign from the 

budget request starting in fiscal year 2014. Instead, the Committee 

recommends moving activities associated with non-nuclear readiness to Directed Stockpile Work under Stockpile Services. Activities 

associated with Tritium Readiness should appear as a separate 

Tritium Production account with its own line item to increase visibility of this program. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $2,239,828,000 as requested. The 

Committee directs NNSA to provide in future budget justifications 

an explanation as to why NNSA has proposed funding for any construction project not originally included in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan. 

Operations of Facilities.—The Committee recommends 

$1,419,403,000 as requested. Within these funds, the Committee 

recommends $5,100,000 for the purchase of a major item of equipment—a high-resolution computed tomography system for pit scanning at the Pantex Plant. 

Nuclear Operations Capability Support.—The Committee recommends $203,346,000 as requested. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $35,000,000 as requested to accelerate material 

stabilization, repackaging, and de-inventory of the PF–4 vault at 

the Los Alamos National Laboratory to reduce nuclear safety risks 

and meet future needs for a new plutonium strategy. 

Science, Technology, and Engineering Support.—The Committee 

recommends $166,945,000 as requested. The Committee supports 

NNSA’s Capability Based Facilities and Infrastructure initiative 

and recommends $73,000,000 as requested. Since the Facilities and 

Infrastructure Recapitalization Program ends in fiscal year 2012, 

the Committee believes it is important that NNSA continue to reduce deferred maintenance on aging infrastructure and reduce the 

size of its footprint. To increase transparency in NNSA’s efforts to 

sustain existing physical infrastructure, the Committee directs 

NNSA to identify funds for maintenance and operations by site as 

separate line items under the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Account starting with the fiscal year 2014 budget submission. The sites include the three national security labs, the Y–12 

National Security Complex, the Kansas City Plant, the Savannah 

River Site, and the Nevada National Security Site. The budget justification shall include an explanation of how NNSA plans to manage deferred maintenance costs, including ways NNSA will stabilize deferred maintenance for mission critical facilities and dispose of excess capacity. Further, the budget shall include total deferred maintenance backlog and how much NNSA is spending at 

each site each year to reduce deferred maintenance. The Committee recommends using the Office of Science’s Science Labora-
98 

tories Infrastructure budget information on deferred maintenance 

as a model. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $450,134,000 as requested. 

Project 13–D–301, Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades, Lawrence 

Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories.—The Committee 

recommends $23,000,000 as requested to upgrade 50-year-old electrical distribution systems at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos 

National Laboratories. 

Project 12–D–301, TRU Waste Facilities, Los Alamos, New Mexico.—The Committee recommends $24,204,000 as requested to 

begin construction of a new transuranic waste facility to meet regulatory requirements of the State of New Mexico. 

Project 11–D–801, TA–55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos, New 

Mexico.—The Committee recommends $8,889,000 as requested to 

continue the second phase of this effort to mitigate safety risks to 

workers identified by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

Project 10–D–501, Nuclear Facility Risk Reduction, Y–12, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $17,909,000 as requested to complete upgrading equipment and infrastructure in 

buildings 9212 and 9204–2E for continued safe uranium operations 

until the new Uranium Processing Facility is operational. 

Project 09–D–404, Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase II, 

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.—The 

Committee recommends $11,332,000 as requested to complete the 

refurbishment of non-nuclear capabilities, such as rocket sled 

tracks and mechanical shock facilities, to test weapons components 

needed for the B61 and future life extension programs. 

Project 08–D–802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex Plant, 

Amarillo, Texas.—The Committee recommends $24,800,000 as requested to build a new facility to make high explosive hemispheres 

for nuclear weapons that is more reliable and can meet the projected workload for life extension programs. 

Project 06–D–141, PED, Uranium Process Facility, Y–12, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $340,000,000 as 

requested to accelerate construction of a new uranium facility with 

a goal of transitioning out of building 9212 beginning in 2019 and 

completing construction in 2022. Within these funds, the Committee provides $160,000,000 as requested to complete project, engineering, and design work and continue site preparation work. 

The Committee recommends that the remaining $180,000,000 for 

construction not be available until NNSA reaches a 90 percent engineering design phase and develops a cost, schedule, and scope 

project baseline, which is estimated to occur by the end of calendar 

year 2012. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation 

Asset program is $219,361,000 as requested. The Committee directs the Secure Transportation Asset program to work with Directed Stockpile Work and the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities programs to identify additional costs, if any, in implementing a new plutonium strategy that may involve additional 
99 

transport of special nuclear materials and the impact on its operations. 

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Committee recommends $247,552,000 as requested. The 

Committee supports the evolution of the NNSA nuclear weapons 

labs to national security labs. The Committee believes NNSA’s investment in infrastructure and expertise to support the nuclear 

weapons program should be exploited for broader national security 

missions, including nuclear counterterrorism and counterproliferation. However, the Committee is concerned that NNSA does not 

have a clear strategy in place that links the unique capabilities of 

the labs and supporting NNSA infrastructure to clear mission goals 

and funding requirements to support the Department of Defense 

and the intelligence community. 

SITE STEWARDSHIP

The Committee recommends $88,249,000, a decrease of 

$1,752,000 below the budget request. The Committee encourages 

NNSA to report on cost savings and cost avoidances related to its 

energy modernization and investment program. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

The Committee recommendation for the Defense Nuclear Security program is $643,285,000 as requested. The Committee is encouraged by NNSA’s efforts to find cost efficiencies while still meeting security requirements. The Committee encourages NNSA to 

continue implementing security reform initiatives to better understand and quantify risks and develop the most cost-effective approach to security. 

NNSA CIO ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommends $155,022,000 as requested to support NNSA’s information technology and cyber security activities. 

The Committee supports NNSA’s effort to consolidate all information technology and cyber security activities under the NNSA’s Office of the Chief Information Officer. The Committee believes a focused and common approach will be more effective in identifying, 

mitigating, and combating risks to NNSA’s and the sites’ computer 

networks. 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING CAPABILITY

The Committee recommends $10,000,000, a decrease of 

$8,248,000, for Science, Technology, and Engineering Capability activities. The funding shall be used to continue Advanced Analysis, 

Tools, and Technologies activities to support the intelligence community and maintain the nuclear technical capabilities for nuclear 

weapons assessments. 
100 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. 1 $2,324,303,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 2,458,631,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,458,631,000 

1Does not include rescission of $21,000,000 under Public Law 112–331. 

The Committee recommends $2,458,631,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation. The Committee commends NNSA for making significant progress in meeting the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials within 4 years. Since April 2009, when President 

Obama announced the 4-year goal, NNSA has removed from international locations over 1,200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium 

and plutonium—enough material for approximately 50 nuclear 

weapons. As part of this effort, in just 3 years NNSA has removed 

all highly enriched uranium from eight countries, including Mexico 

and Ukraine in March 2012. NNSA also removed over three kilograms of plutonium from Sweden in March 2012 in its first shipment of plutonium to the United States. Further, NNSA has completed security upgrades at 32 additional buildings in Russia containing weapons-usable materials and downblended 2.9 metric tons 

of Russian highly enriched uranium. The Committee provides funding to continue NNSA’s accelerated efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $418,186,000, a decrease of 

$130,000,000, to support investment in developing advanced nuclear detection technologies. Within these funds, the Committee 

recommends $65,000,000 for the National Center for Nuclear Security at the Nevada National Security Center of which $10,000,000 

is for research and development activities for technologies needed 

to verify future treaties and train national and international arms 

control inspectors. Also within these funds, the Committee recommends $158,650,000 for nuclear detonation detection to meet 

production requirements of satellite sensors. The Committee recommends no funds for a domestic uranium enrichment research, 

development, and demonstration project under this account. Rather, the Committee recommends transfer authority to the Secretary 

of Energy of up to $150,000,000 from NNSA to fund this project. 

The Committee is concerned that current radiation detection 

equipment is only capable of detecting certain nuclear materials 

when they are unshielded or lightly shielded. Therefore, the Committee directs that not less than $5,000,000 be made available to 

operationally test promising passive new technologies that are able 

to detect both heavily shielded and unshielded special nuclear material. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommends $150,119,000 as requested. The 

Committee recognizes NNSA’s efforts in re-evaluating the need for 

the Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention, which has been 

renamed Global Security Through Science Partnerships. The Committee understands that the study concluded that the transfer of 

weapons-usable information and knowledge remains a threat, and 
101 

that NNSA is well suited to help address this threat because of its 

long-standing relationships with the scientific and technical community worldwide. However, the Committee is concerned that expanding the geographic reach of the program and poorly defined, 

ambiguous strategies, such as establishing a shared code of ethics 

and responsibility in the global scientific community, within a constrained budget is not the most efficient or effective use of funds. 

In addition, the Committee is not convinced that NNSA is the best 

agency or organization to carry out this activity. For this reason, 

the Committee provides no funds for the Global Security Through 

Science Partnerships unless NNSA provides the Committee by November 1, 2012 a clear strategy and achievable performance 

metrics that demonstrate how this effort will reduce the risk of 

transferring weapons of mass destruction knowledge. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The Committee recommends $368,000,000, which is $57,000,000 

above the request. The Committee is encouraged by NNSA’s efforts 

in completing security upgrades at 218 out of 229 buildings that 

store weapons usable nuclear material and warheads in Russia and 

other former Soviet countries. The Committee also supports 

NNSA’s efforts to continue additional upgrades at 18 sites to address insider threats and further reduce the risk of material theft. 

These upgrades directly support the U.S. effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within 4 years by securing 

warheads and weapons-exploitable nuclear materials at their 

source. The Committee is also encouraged by NNSA’s efforts in preventing and detecting the illicit transfer of nuclear materials by installing radiation detection equipment at 462 sites—421 borders, 

airports, and strategic ports and 41 Megaports across the world. 

The Committee also supports NNSA’s efforts in deploying mobile 

detection systems to expand the reach of detection capabilities. 

The Committee is concerned, however, by NNSA’s decision to significantly curtail Second Line of Defense Activities. The Core program installs radiation detection equipment at strategic borders, 

airports, and shipping ports in Russia, other Former Soviet Union 

states, Eastern Europe, and other key countries. Complementing 

these activities is the Megaports Initiative, which provides radiation detection equipment to key international shipping seaports to 

enable screening of cargo containers for nuclear and radiological 

materials. NNSA’s stated goal over the last several years was to accelerate efforts to deploy detection equipment at 550 sites in 30 

countries and 100 international seaports by the end of 2018. In addition, a March 2012 program review found that Second Line of Defense equipment is being effectively employed and adequately 

maintained by the majority of partner countries and detection capabilities of these countries have significant improved. However, 

the fiscal year 2013 budget request proposed a cut of $171,000,000, 

or 65 percent, to these activities. The main justification for a pause 

in activities is the need to conduct a strategic review of the program. The Committee supports NNSA’s decision to review the effectiveness of this program and recommend new strategies to better 

detect nuclear smuggling. However, a cut of this magnitude would 

not be sufficient to sustain already deployed systems, retain expert 
102 

personnel, and meet international obligations to deploy additional 

radiation detection systems. In addition, nuclear smuggling continues to be a significant problem. According to the International 

Atomic Energy Agency, there were 147 incidents of nuclear smuggling in 2011. Four incidents involved significant quantities of 

highly enriched uranium and one of these incidents was related to 

an attempted sale of this material. 

The Committee directs NNSA to submit a new strategic plan by 

December 1, 2012, which should include long-term goals and objectives, approaches for accomplishing the goals and objectives, performance goals that are objective, quantifiable, and measurable, 

and the resources needed to meet the performance goals. As part 

of its evaluation of the program, NNSA should report on the percentage of global shipping traffic currently scanned, incidents of 

nuclear and radiation detection, the status and type of current inventory of radiation portal monitors, and total equipment requirements needed to meet the President’s stated goal of scanning 50 

percent of global shipping traffic by 2018. The strategy should consider private-public partnerships that may reduce costs of developing, deploying, and maintaining detection technologies. As NNSA 

develops its strategy, the Committee recommends that it adopt the 

goal of reducing the cost of installation beyond current levels of 

$1,000,000–$2,000,000 per site for foreign crossings and 

$8,000,000–$15,000,000 per seaport. The strategy should also consider the viability of using managed service agreements for the acquisition of detection technologies to replace outdated equipment 

more frequently and at lower cost. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Committee recommends $921,305,000 as requested to support the plutonium disposition program and construction projects. 

U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.—The Committee recommends $528,715,000 including $498,979,000 as requested for the 

U.S. plutonium disposition and $29,736,000 as requested for the 

U.S. uranium disposition programs. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $388,802,000 as requested to support construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility [MFFF]. The Committee remains concerned with the overall 

management of the U.S. plutonium disposition program. The Committee supports NNSA’s decision to terminate the Pit Disassembly 

and Conversion Facility because of significant cost overruns. However, the Committee is concerned by NNSA’s failure to identify alternatives earlier, before spending $700,000,000 over 13 years and 

determining that existing facilities could be used to meet mission 

needs. The Committee is also concerned by an increase in estimated annual operating costs for the MOX facility. Estimated operating costs have grown from $156,000,000 a year in fiscal year 

2011 to $356,000,000 a year in fiscal year 2012 and now are estimated at $499,000,000 a year—an increase of more than 200 percent in just 2 years. NNSA has failed to provide a sufficient justification for this increase. The Committee is also concerned about 

testing needed to use fuel made from weapons-grade plutonium for 

boiling water reactors. Testing may significantly increase costs and 

it is not clear whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] 
103 

has sufficient resources to evaluate the testing data to make a determination about the safe use of this fuel. The Committee directs 

NNSA to work with the NRC to identify the resources needed to 

evaluate these tests and determine the impact resource shortfalls 

may have on program execution. 

Project 99–D–143, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River, South Carolina.—The Committee recommends 

$388,802,000 as requested. 

Russian Surplus Materials Disposition.—The Committee recommends $3,788,000 as requested. 

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Committee recommends $539,021,000, which is $73,000,000 

above the request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends 

$201,021,000 for the highly enriched uranium [HEU] reactor conversion program, $213,000,000 for nuclear and radiological material removal, and $125,000,000 for nuclear and radiological material protection. 

The Committee is concerned by NNSA’s decision to delay the 

shut down or conversion of research reactors that use HEU around 

the world. HEU-fueled research reactors have some of the world’s 

weakest security measures and a determined terrorist could use 

HEU reactor fuel for a nuclear device. NNSA’s stated goal was to 

convert or shut down 200 research reactors by 2022. The fiscal year 

2013 budget submission would delay this goal by 3 years. Because 

each reactor conversion takes approximately 2 to 5 years, depending on a variety of factors, such as time needed to modify facilities 

to accept low enriched uranium [LEU] fuel, funding is needed in 

advance to prepare for these conversions. A funding shortfall in fiscal year 2013 means three less reactors converted beginning in fiscal year 2014. The Committee recommendation would allow NNSA 

to meet its original goal of converting or shutting down 200 research reactors by 2022. The Committee is encouraged by NNSA 

efforts to engage Russia in shutting down or converting 71 HEU research reactors. The United States has verified the shutdown of 

five HEU Russian research reactors over the past 2 years and six 

reactors are undergoing feasibility studies to convert them to LEU 

use. 

The Committee also supports NNSA efforts in developing a capability which does not currently exist in the U.S. to produce Moly– 

99—a medical isotope used in 16 million nuclear medicine procedures in the United States each year—with LEU. The Committee 

encourages NNSA to accelerate efforts to help current producers 

convert to LEU as quickly as possible by reducing the technical, political, economic, and regulatory hurdles associated with non-HEUbased Moly–99 production. The Committee encourages NNSA to 

work with other Federal agencies to develop options and alternatives to ensure a reliable domestic supply of non-HEU-based 

Moly-99, such as preferential procurement of non-HEU-based 

Moly–99 by the medical community and disincentives for the procurement of HEU-based Moly–99. 

The Committee is also concerned about a proposed 60 percent reduction in activities to remove and dispose of excess or abandoned 

radiological materials in other countries. While radiological mate-
104 

rials present a lower national security risk, radiological materials 

could be used for a radiological dispersion device that could have 

catastrophic consequences, including infrastructure damage and radioactive contamination that could prohibit the use of a large geographical area and create economic losses in the billions of dollars. 

For this reason, the Committee recommends $20,000,000, an increase of $12,000,000, for the International Radiological Material 

Removal program. The Committee also recommends $75,000,000 

for the Domestic Material Protection Program, of which not less 

than $20,000,000 should be used to accelerate security upgrades at 

U.S. hospitals and medical facilities. GAO recently found several 

examples of radiological sources at hospitals and medical facilities 

that were vulnerable to possible tampering, sabotage, or outright 

theft. In the absence of accelerated funding, it will be years before 

all radiological materials at hospitals and medical facilities located 

in the United States will be adequately secured from potential theft 

or diversion. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $1,080,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,088,635,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,088,635,000 

The Committee recommends $1,088,635,000 for Naval Reactors. 

The Committee commends NNSA for clearly prioritizing work for 

three new projects: refueling of a land-based reactor prototype, design of a 40-year reactor plant for new OHIO-class ballistic missile 

submarines, and construction of a new spent fuel facility. The Committee understands that the land-based prototype is the highest 

priority because it must be refueled starting in 2018 to demonstrate critical technologies in support of the Ohio-class replacement program, maintain vital research and testing capabilities, 

and continue to train nuclear operators for the Fleet. The Committee also understands that the schedule for designing a new reactor for the Ohio-class submarines has slipped by 2 years, but the 

schedule delay is consistent with the delay in the Navy’s construction schedule. The Committee is concerned about construction of a 

new spent fuel facility. The Committee understands that the current Naval Reactors Facility at Idaho National Laboratory continues to be maintained and operated in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, but the existing infrastructure and 

equipment is over 50 years old and does not meet current standards or mission requirements. Based on projections, the facility will 

be completed 2 years behind schedule. The Committee directs 

NNSA to assess alternative storage solutions and associated costs 

until the new facility is operational to avoid disruptions to the 

Navy’s mission and report those alternatives and costs in the fiscal 

year 2014 budget submission. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $410,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 411,279,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 386,279,000 
105 

The Committee recommends $386,279,000 for the Office of the 

Administrator. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $55,476,025 to support defense nuclear nonproliferation 

activities. The Committee recommendation takes into account the 

$25,000,000 functional transfer for information technology activities out of the Office of the Administrator to the Chief Information 

Officer under Weapons Activities to consolidate information technology and cyber security efforts. 

The Committee is still concerned with overlap and duplication 

between the NNSA Office of Congressional Affairs, DOE’s Office of 

Congressional Affairs, and the DOE Chief Financial Officer’s External Coordination Office [CFO ExCo]. In addition, in November 

2011, DOE’s Inspector General found that NNSA maintains a costly set of distinctly separate overhead and indirect cost operations 

that often duplicated existing DOE functions, such as Congressional Affairs, General Counsel, Human Resources, and Public Affairs. The Committee directs NNSA and DOE to submit a joint assessment to the Committee by December 1, 2012 of the costs and 

benefits of consolidating functions with DOE to reduce costs and 

improve communication and program execution to respond to Congressional and Inspector General concerns and propose options for 

implementing changes, such as legislative changes. 

The Committee is also concerned that government pay and benefits in the Office of the Administrator at a time of pay freezes are 

not matching the rate of pay and benefits increases in the General 

Service pay plan. In general, pay and benefits increases in a pay 

for performance system should not outpace the General Service pay 

plan on average. However, the Committee is concerned that the Office of the Administrator’s pay for performance implementation outpaces the General Service pay plan on average. The Committee directs the Office of the Administrator to work with the Office of Personnel Management to implement a pay for performance system 

that is consistent with the General Service pay plan and notify the 

Committee of any changes that affect funding for the Office of the 

Administrator. 

The Committee is also troubled by NNSA’s distribution of fulltime equivalents [FTEs] within the Office of the Administrator. For 

example, more FTEs are dedicated to external affairs than counterterrorism, which does not seem to be consistent with the mission 

priorities of the agency. The Committee directs NNSA to provide 

a clear explanation of how it determines its FTE distribution in the 

next budget justification. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $5,023,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 5,009,001,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,063,987,000 

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $5,063,987,000. In addition, the Committee recommends 

use of prior year balances in the amount of $22,123,000 for a total 

budget of $5,086,110,000. Within the total provided, the Department is directed to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training 

Program. 
106 

Reprogramming Control Levels.—In fiscal year 2013, the Environmental Management program may transfer funding between operating expense funded projects within the controls listed below 

using guidance contained in the Department’s budget execution 

manual (DOE M 135.1–1A, chapter IV). All capital construction 

line item projects remain separate controls from the operating 

projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of congressional response. The Committee recommends the following reprogramming control points for 

fiscal year 2012: 

—Closure Sites; 

—Hanford Site; 

—Idaho National Laboratory; 

—NNSA Sites; 

—Oak Ridge Reservation; 

—Office of River Protection; 

—Savannah River Site; 

—Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; 

—Program Direction; 

—Program Support; 

—Technology Development and Deployment; 

—Safeguards and Security; and 

—All Capital Construction Line Items, regardless of site. 

Internal Reprogramming Authority.—The new reprogramming 

control points above obviates, in most cases, the need for internal 

reprogramming authority. However, at the few sites to which the 

internal reprogramming statute still applies, Environmental Management site managers may transfer up to $5,000,000, one time, 

between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety risks, 

gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a program or 

project is not increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 in 

total during the fiscal year. 

The reprogramming authority—either formal or internal—may 

not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding levels 

for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress 

in the act or report. The Committee on Appropriations in the 

House and Senate must be notified within 30 days after the use of 

the internal reprogramming authority. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommends $1,990,000 for Closure Sites activities. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommends $975,423,000 for 

Richland Operations. The Committee is aware that the B Reactor 

has been identified as a National Historic Landmark and the Department of Energy has stated that the intent is preserving the reactor for public access. To ensure this intent is accomplished, the 

Committee believes that it is appropriate to use cleanup dollars for 

the maintenance and public safety efforts at the B Reactor. Funding for the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response facilities are provided for within available funds. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends 

$399,607,000 for Idaho National Laboratory. 
107 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommends $334,268,000 for 

NNSA sites. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$213,495,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation. 

Building 3019.—The Committee recommends $37,000,000 for the 

cleanup of Building 3019. This project will result in saving some 

$5,000,000 in annual security costs at Oak Ridge National Laboratory once complete. The Committee directs the Department to provide an updated plan within 60 days of enactment of this act that 

keeps the project on a 5-year schedule. 

Oak Ridge Reservation Mercury Cleanup.—Remediation of mercury contamination at Oak Ridge Reservation from work performed 

at the Y–12 site during the Cold War is a high priority for the Environmental Management program. While DOE has taken some 

initial efforts to contain mercury, the Committee believes a more 

aggressive effort is warranted. The Committee recommends 

$25,000,000 for additional steps to contain mercury and limit discharges into the surface water at Oak Ridge. Mercury remediation 

will be a long-term effort requiring significant investments, including demolition and decontamination of 4 buildings. The Committee 

directs the Department to submit within 60 days of enactment of 

this Act a comprehensive plan for mercury remediation at Oak 

Ridge, including costs and schedule. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$1,172,113,000 for the Office of River Protection. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,181,516,000 for the Savannah River site. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.—The Committee recommends 

$208,896,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $323,504,000 

for program direction. 

Program Support.—The Committee recommends $18,279,000 for 

program support. 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommends 

$237,019,000 for safeguards and security. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for technology development and deployment. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $823,364,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 735,702,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 735,702,000 

The Committee recommendation is $735,702,000. The Committee 

recognizes that the decrease relative to fiscal year 2012 reflects the 

transfer of funding related to safeguards and security of the Idaho 

National Laboratory from Other Defense Activities to the Nuclear 

Energy appropriations account. 

Health, Safety and Security.—The Committee recommends 

$245,500,000 as requested. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $4,405,000, which is the same as fiscal year 2012 enacted 

levels, for domestic health research activities, of which $1,500,000 

shall be used to support the continuation of the Illness and Injury 

Surveillance program. The Committee supports the Illness and Injury Surveillance program because it is the only active surveillance 
108 

program across DOE that monitors the potential health effects of 

workers at DOE and NNSA sites and currently monitors the health 

of about 79,000 contract and Federal workers. 

Specialized Security Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$188,619,000 as requested. 

Office of Legacy Management.—The Committee recommends 

$177,946,000 as requested. 

Defense-Related Administrative Support.—The Committee recommends $118,836,000 as requested. 

Office of Hearings and Appeals.—The Committee recommends 

$4,801,000 as requested. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 

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. Bonneville also exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada 

and California. The Committee recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal year 2013. 

The Committee is aware of the Secretary of Energy’s March 16, 

2012, memorandum directed to the Administrators of the Power 

Marketing Administrations, and understands that with respect to 

the Bonneville Power Administration [BPA], the BPA is currently 

meeting those directorates. The Committee is disappointed that the 

proposals in this memorandum were developed without any consultation with Members of Congress representing the BPA service 

area or any public process with BPA ratepayers. The Committee directs that the Secretary of Energy or his designee to consult with 

appropriate Members of Congress and conduct a public process in 

advance of use of any funds appropriated to the Department of Energy under this act to direct or implement proposals stemming 

from the Department of Energy March 16, 2012, memorandum that 

would impact the Bonneville Power Administration. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 as the appropriations are offset 

by collections, the same as the budget request. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $11,892,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 11,892,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,892,000 
109 

For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $11,892,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $95,968,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 96,130,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 96,130,000 

For the Western Area Power Administration, the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $96,130,000, the same as the 

budget request. The Western Area Power Administration is encouraged to continue its efforts to build a more secure and sustainable 

electricity grid by pioneering programs and activities to maximize 

the use and integration of energy efficiency, renewable energy, distributed generation, and demand response, as well as improving 

transmission access between regions and interconnections. 

The Committee notes that some of the Administration’s efforts in 

this area may have impacts on costs to consumers. The Committee 

recommends the Administration work with customers to address 

relevant concerns and inform Congress of major initiatives. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $220,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 220,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 220,000 

For the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, 

the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $220,000 the 

same as the request. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $304,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 304,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 304,600,000 

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ¥$304,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥304,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥304,600,000 
110 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D: 

Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies ........................................................................................................................... 104,000 80,000 104,000 .......................... ∂24,000 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D ...................................................................................................................... 200,000 270,000 200,000 .......................... ¥70,000 Solar energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 290,000 310,000 293,000 ∂3,000 ¥17,000 Wind energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 93,593 95,000 95,000 ∂1,407 ..........................Geothermal technology ................................................................................................................................................ 38,000 65,000 65,000 ∂27,000 ..........................Water power ................................................................................................................................................................. 59,000 20,000 59,000 .......................... ∂39,000 Vehicle technologies .................................................................................................................................................... 330,000 420,000 330,000 .......................... ¥90,000 Building technologies .................................................................................................................................................. 220,000 310,000 220,000 .......................... ¥90,000 Advanced manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................ .......................... 290,000 168,635 ∂168,635 ¥121,365 Industrial technologies ................................................................................................................................................ 116,000 .......................... .......................... ¥116,000 ..........................Federal energy management program ........................................................................................................................ 30,000 32,000 30,000 .......................... ¥2,000 Facilities and infrastructure: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] ................................................................................................. 26,407 26,400 26,400 ¥7 ..........................

Subtotal, Facilities and infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 26,407 26,400 26,400 ¥7 ..........................

Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 165,000 164,700 164,700 ¥300 ..........................Strategic programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 25,000 58,900 25,000 .......................... ¥33,900 

Subtotal, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D .................................................................................. 1,697,000 2,142,000 1,780,735 ∂83,735 ¥361,265 

Weatherization and intragovernmental: 

Weatherization: 

Weatherization assistance .................................................................................................................................. 65,000 135,700 141,700 ∂76,700 ∂6,000 Training and technical assistance .................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,300 3,300 ∂300 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 68,000 139,000 145,000 ∂77,000 ∂6,000 

Other: 

State energy program grants ............................................................................................................................. 50,000 49,000 50,000 .......................... ∂1,000 
111 

Tribal energy activities ....................................................................................................................................... 10,000 7,000 10,000 .......................... ∂3,000 

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 60,000 56,000 60,000 .......................... ∂4,000 Subtotal, Weatherization and intragovernmental .......................................................................................... 128,000 195,000 199,000 ∂71,000 ∂4,000 Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy ....................................................................................... 1,825,000 2,337,000 1,985,735 ∂160,735 ¥351,265 

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥9,909 ¥69,667 ¥69,667 ¥59,758 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission ....................................................................................................................... ¥5,453 .......................... .......................... ∂5,453 ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ......................................................................................... 1,809,638 2,267,333 1,916,068 ∂106,430 ¥351,265 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

Research and development: 

Electricity systems hub ............................................................................................................................................... .......................... 20,000 20,000 ∂20,000 ..........................Clean-energy transmission and reliability .................................................................................................................. 25,490 24,000 24,000 ¥1,490 ..........................Smart grid research and development ....................................................................................................................... 24,000 14,400 14,400 ¥9,600 ..........................Energy storage ............................................................................................................................................................. 20,000 15,000 15,000 ¥5,000 ..........................Cyber security for energy delivery systems ................................................................................................................. 30,000 30,000 30,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 99,490 103,400 103,400 ∂3,910 ..........................

Permitting, siting, and analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 7,000 6,000 6,000 ¥1,000 ..........................Infrastructure security and energy restoration .................................................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 6,000 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 27,010 27,615 27,615 ∂605 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission ....................................................................................................................... ¥397 .......................... .......................... ∂397 ..........................

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY ..................................................................................... 139,103 143,015 143,015 ∂3,912 ..........................

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

Research and development: 

Nuclear energy-enabling technologies ........................................................................................................................ 74,880 65,318 65,318 ¥9,562 ..........................Integrated university program ..................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................Small modular reactor licensing technical support ................................................................................................... 67,000 65,000 65,000 ¥2,000 ..........................Reactor concepts RD&D .............................................................................................................................................. 115,544 73,674 73,674 ¥41,870 ..........................Fuel-cycle research and development ......................................................................................................................... 187,351 175,438 193,138 ∂5,787 ∂17,700 International nuclear energy cooperation ................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 452,775 382,430 400,130 ¥52,645 ∂17,700 
112 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Infrastructure: 

Radiological facilities management: 

Space and defense infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 64,902 46,000 61,000 ¥3,902 ∂15,000 Research reactor infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 4,986 5,000 5,000 ∂14 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 69,888 51,000 66,000 ¥3,888 ∂15,000 

INL facilities management: 

INL operations and infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 155,000 144,220 144,220 ¥10,780 ..........................Construction: 

13–D–905 RHLLW disposal project .......................................................................................................... .......................... 6,280 6,280 ∂6,280 ..........................13–E–200 Advanced PIE capabilities ....................................................................................................... .......................... 1,500 1,500 ∂1,500 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 7,780 7,780 ∂7,780 ..........................

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ..................................................................................................................... .......................... 95,000 93,000 ∂93,000 ¥2,000 

Subtotal, Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 224,888 298,000 311,000 ∂86,112 ∂13,000 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 91,000 90,015 92,015 ∂1,015 ∂2,000 

Subtotal, Nuclear energy ........................................................................................................................................ 768,663 770,445 803,145 ∂34,482 ∂32,700 

Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission ....................................................................................................................... ¥3,272 .......................... .......................... ∂3,272 ..........................Use of prior years balances ................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥17,700 ¥17,700 ¥17,700 

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 765,391 770,445 785,445 ∂20,054 ∂15,000 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

CCS and power systems: 

Carbon capture ............................................................................................................................................................ 68,938 60,438 60,438 ¥8,500 ..........................Carbon storage ............................................................................................................................................................ 115,477 95,477 95,477 ¥20,000 ..........................Advanced energy systems ........................................................................................................................................... 100,000 55,193 80,946 ¥19,054 ∂25,753 
113 

Cross-cutting research ................................................................................................................................................ 49,163 29,750 29,750 ¥19,413 ..........................NETL coal research and development ......................................................................................................................... 35,031 35,011 35,011 ¥20 ..........................

Subtotal, CCS and power systems ......................................................................................................................... 368,609 275,869 301,622 ¥66,987 ∂25,753 

Natural gas technologies ..................................................................................................................................................... 15,000 17,000 22,000 ∂7,000 ∂5,000 Unconventional fossil energy technologies from petroleum—oil technologies ................................................................... 5,000 .......................... 5,000 .......................... ∂5,000 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 120,000 115,753 120,000 .......................... ∂4,247 Plant and capital equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 16,794 13,294 13,294 ¥3,500 ..........................Fossil energy environmental restoration .............................................................................................................................. 7,897 5,897 5,897 ¥2,000 ..........................Special recruitment programs .............................................................................................................................................. 700 700 700 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Fossil energy research and development ............................................................................................... 534,000 428,513 468,513 ¥65,487 ∂40,000 

Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥7,938 ¥7,938 ¥7,938 ..........................Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥187,000 .......................... .......................... ∂187,000 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission ....................................................................................................................... ¥297 .......................... .......................... ∂297 ..........................

TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 346,703 420,575 460,575 ∂113,872 ∂40,000 

Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves .............................................................................................................................. 14,909 14,909 14,909 .......................... ..........................Elk Hills School Lands Fund ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 15,580 15,580 ∂15,580 ..........................Strategic Petroleum Reserve ................................................................................................................................................ 192,704 195,609 195,609 ∂2,905 ..........................

SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT 

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥500,000 ¥291,000 .......................... ∂500,000 ∂291,000 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE 

Northeast home heating oil reserve ..................................................................................................................................... 10,119 10,119 10,119 .......................... ..........................Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥100,000 ¥6,000 ¥6,000 ∂94,000 ..........................

TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ................................................................................................. ¥89,881 4,119 4,119 ∂94,000 ..........................

Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 105,000 116,365 116,365 ∂11,365 ..........................

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) .................................................................................................................................... 2,703 2,704 2,704 ∂1 ..........................Gaseous diffusion plants ..................................................................................................................................................... 100,588 90,109 90,109 ¥10,479 ..........................Small sites ........................................................................................................................................................................... 67,430 57,831 87,831 ∂20,401 ∂30,000 West Valley Demonstration Project ...................................................................................................................................... 65,000 47,862 47,862 ¥17,138 ..........................
114 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission ....................................................................................................................... ¥415 .......................... .......................... ∂415 ..........................

TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ................................................................................................. 235,306 198,506 228,506 ¥6,800 ∂30,000 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND 

Oak Ridge ............................................................................................................................................................................. 200,856 207,798 207,798 ∂6,942 ..........................Paducah ................................................................................................................................................................................ 81,807 90,142 90,142 ∂8,335 ..........................Portsmouth ........................................................................................................................................................................... 190,267 127,038 127,038 ¥63,229 ..........................Pension and community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................. .......................... 17,515 17,515 ∂17,515 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze ......................................................................................................................................... ¥750 .......................... .......................... ∂750 ..........................

TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND/URANIUM INVENTORY 

CLEANUP ............................................................................................................................................................. 472,180 442,493 442,493 ¥29,687 ..........................

SCIENCE 

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................................................................................. 442,000 455,593 455,593 ∂13,593 ..........................Basic energy sciences: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,542,600 1,688,889 1,601,388 ∂58,788 ¥87,501 Construction: 

07–SC–06 Project engineering and design [PED] National Synchrotron light source II [NSLS–II] .................. 151,400 47,203 47,203 ¥104,197 ..........................13–SC–10 LINAC coherent light source, II [SLAC] ............................................................................................ .......................... 63,500 63,500 ∂63,500 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 151,400 110,703 110,703 ¥40,697 ..........................Subtotal, Basic energy sciences .................................................................................................................... 1,694,000 1,799,592 1,712,091 ∂18,091 ¥87,501 

Biological and environmental research ............................................................................................................................... 611,823 625,347 625,347 ∂13,524 ..........................Fusion energy sciences program .......................................................................................................................................... 402,177 398,324 398,324 ¥3,853 ..........................High-energy physics: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 763,700 756,521 745,521 ¥18,179 ¥11,000 
115 

Construction: 

11–SC–40 Project engineering and design [PED] long baseline neutrino experiment, FNAL .......................... 4,000 .......................... 16,000 ∂12,000 ∂16,000 11–SC–41 Project engineering and design [PED] muon to electron conversion experiment, FNAL ................. 24,000 20,000 20,000 ¥4,000 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 28,000 20,000 36,000 ∂8,000 ∂16,000 Subtotal, High-energy physics ....................................................................................................................... 791,700 776,521 781,521 ¥10,179 ∂5,000 

Nuclear physics: 

Operations and maintenance ...................................................................................................................................... 500,000 486,366 499,366 ¥634 ∂13,000 Construction: 

06–SC–01 Project engineering and design [PED] 12 GeV continuous electron beam accelerator facility upgrade, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility (was project 07–SC–001), Newport News, 

Virginia ........................................................................................................................................................... 50,000 40,572 40,572 ¥9,428 ..........................

Subtotal, Nuclear physics ......................................................................................................................... 550,000 526,938 539,938 ¥10,062 ∂13,000 

Workforce development for teachers and scientists ............................................................................................................ 18,500 14,500 14,500 ¥4,000 ..........................Science laboratories infrastructure: 

Infrastructure support: 

Payment in lieu of taxes .................................................................................................................................... 1,385 1,385 1,385 .......................... ..........................Facilities and infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. .......................... 900 900 ∂900 ..........................Oak Ridge landlord ............................................................................................................................................ 5,493 5,934 5,934 ∂441 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 6,878 8,219 8,219 ∂1,341 ..........................

Construction: 

13–SC–70 utilities upgrade, FINAL ................................................................................................................... .......................... 2,500 2,500 ∂2,500 ..........................13–SC–71 Utility infrastructure modernization at TJNAF .................................................................................. .......................... 2,500 2,500 ∂2,500 ..........................12–SC–70 Science and user support building, SLAC ....................................................................................... 12,086 21,629 21,629 ∂9,543 ..........................10–SC–70 Research support building and infrastructure modernization, SLAC .............................................. 12,024 36,382 36,382 ∂24,358 ..........................10–SC–71 Energy sciences building, ANL ......................................................................................................... 40,000 32,030 32,030 ¥7,970 ..........................10–SC–72 Renovate science laboratory, phase II, BNL .................................................................................... 15,500 14,530 14,530 ¥970 ..........................09–SC–72 Seismic life-safety, modernization and replacement of general purpose buildings, phase 2, 

PED/Construction, LBNL ................................................................................................................................. 12,975 .......................... .......................... ¥12,975 ..........................

09–SC–74, Technology and engineering development facilities PED, TJNAF ................................................... 12,337 .......................... .......................... ¥12,337 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 104,922 109,571 109,571 ∂4,649 ..........................Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure ................................................................................................ 111,800 117,790 117,790 ∂5,990 ..........................

Safeguards and security ...................................................................................................................................................... 82,000 84,000 83,000 ∂1,000 ¥1,000 
116 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Science program direction ................................................................................................................................................... 185,000 202,551 190,000 ∂5,000 ¥12,551 

Subtotal, Science .................................................................................................................................................... 4,889,000 5,001,156 4,918,104 ∂29,104 ¥83,052 

Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥9,104 ¥9,104 ¥9,104 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission ....................................................................................................................... ¥15,366 .......................... .......................... ∂15,366 ..........................

TOTAL, SCIENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 4,873,634 4,992,052 4,909,000 ∂35,366 ¥83,052 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY 

ARPA–E projects ................................................................................................................................................................... 255,000 325,000 287,000 ∂32,000 ¥38,000 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 20,000 25,000 25,000 ∂5,000 ..........................

TOTAL, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY ................................................................................... 275,000 350,000 312,000 ∂37,000 ¥38,000 

TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM 

Administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................................................... 38,000 38,000 38,000 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collection ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥38,000 ¥38,000 ¥38,000 .......................... ..........................

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM 

Administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................................................... 6,000 9,000 9,000 ∂3,000 ..........................

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative operations: 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Secretary: 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................... 5,030 4,986 4,986 ¥44 ..........................

Chief Financial Officer ....................................................................................................................................... 53,204 51,043 51,043 ¥2,161 ..........................Management ....................................................................................................................................................... 62,693 53,257 43,257 ¥19,436 ¥10,000 Human capital management ............................................................................................................................. 23,089 23,286 23,286 ∂197 ..........................Chief Information Officer ................................................................................................................................... 36,615 36,243 36,243 ¥372 ..........................
117 

Congressional and intergovernmental affairs: 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................... 4,690 4,076 4,076 ¥614 ..........................

Economic impact and diversity .......................................................................................................................... 5,660 6,447 6,447 ∂787 ..........................General counsel .................................................................................................................................................. 33,053 33,256 33,256 ∂203 ..........................Policy and international affairs ......................................................................................................................... 20,518 20,781 20,781 ∂263 ..........................Public affairs ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,801 3,310 3,310 ¥491 ..........................Office of Indian energy policy and programs .................................................................................................... 2,000 2,506 2,506 ∂506 ..........................

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................... 250,353 239,191 229,191 ¥21,162 ¥10,000 

Program support: 

Minority economic impact .................................................................................................................................. 1,813 1,059 1,059 ¥754 ..........................Policy analysis and system studies ................................................................................................................... 441 400 400 ¥41 ..........................Environmental policy studies ............................................................................................................................. 520 500 500 ¥20 ..........................Climate change technology program (program support) .................................................................................. 5,482 5,600 5,600 ∂118 ..........................Cybersecurity and secure communications ........................................................................................................ 21,934 33,576 33,576 ∂11,642 ..........................Corporate IT program support [CIO] .................................................................................................................. 27,379 20,756 20,756 ¥6,623 ..........................

Subtotal, Program support ............................................................................................................................ 57,569 61,891 61,891 ∂4,322 ..........................Subtotal, Administrative operations .............................................................................................................. 307,922 301,082 291,082 ¥16,840 ¥10,000 

Cost of work for others ............................................................................................................................................... 48,537 48,537 48,537 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Departmental administration .................................................................................................................. 356,459 349,619 339,619 ¥16,840 ¥10,000 

Funding from other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. ¥118,836 ¥118,836 ¥118,836 .......................... ..........................

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ........................................................................................................... 237,623 230,783 220,783 ¥16,840 ¥10,000 

Miscellaneous revenues ........................................................................................................................................................ ¥111,623 ¥108,188 ¥108,188 ∂3,435 ..........................

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ...................................................................................................... 126,000 122,595 112,595 ¥13,405 ¥10,000 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................................. 42,000 43,468 43,468 ∂1,468 ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................... 8,813,687 9,815,064 9,708,747 ∂895,060 ¥106,317 
118 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES 

Directed stockpile work: 

Life extension program: 

B61 Life extension program ............................................................................................................................... 223,562 369,000 339,000 ∂115,438 ¥30,000 W76 Life extension program .............................................................................................................................. 257,035 174,931 204,931 ¥52,104 ∂30,000 

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 480,597 543,931 543,931 ∂63,334 ..........................

Stockpile systems: 

B61 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 72,396 72,364 72,364 ¥32 ..........................W76 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 63,383 65,445 65,445 ∂2,062 ..........................W78 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 99,518 139,207 139,207 ∂39,689 ..........................W80 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 44,444 46,540 46,540 ∂2,096 ..........................B83 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 48,215 57,947 57,947 ∂9,732 ..........................W87 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 83,943 85,689 85,689 ∂1,746 ..........................W88 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 75,728 123,217 123,217 ∂47,489 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 487,627 590,409 590,409 ∂102,782 ..........................

Weapons dismantlement and disposition: 

Operations and maintenance ............................................................................................................................. 56,770 51,265 51,265 ¥5,505 ..........................

Stockpile services: 

Production support ............................................................................................................................................. 330,000 365,405 347,405 ∂17,405 ¥18,000 Research and development support .................................................................................................................. 30,264 28,103 28,103 ¥2,161 ..........................R & D certification and safety .......................................................................................................................... 165,569 191,632 199,632 ∂34,063 ∂8,000 Management, technology, and production ......................................................................................................... 188,700 175,844 175,844 ¥12,856 ..........................Plutonium sustainment ...................................................................................................................................... 140,000 141,685 141,685 ∂1,685 ..........................
119 

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 854,533 902,669 892,669 ∂38,136 ¥10,000 Subtotal, Directed stockpile work .................................................................................................................. 1,879,527 2,088,274 2,078,274 ∂198,747 ¥10,000 

Campaigns: 

Science campaign: 

Advanced certification ........................................................................................................................................ 40,000 44,104 44,104 ∂4,104 ..........................Primary assessment technologies ...................................................................................................................... 86,055 94,000 94,000 ∂7,945 ..........................Dynamic materials properties ............................................................................................................................ 96,984 97,000 97,000 ∂16 ..........................Advanced radiography ........................................................................................................................................ 26,000 30,000 30,000 ∂4,000 ..........................Secondary assessment technologies .................................................................................................................. 85,000 85,000 85,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 334,039 350,104 350,104 ∂16,065 ..........................

Engineering campaign: 

Enhanced surety ................................................................................................................................................. 41,696 46,421 46,421 ∂4,725 ..........................Weapons system engineering assessment technology ...................................................................................... 15,663 18,983 18,983 ∂3,320 ..........................Nuclear survivability ........................................................................................................................................... 19,545 21,788 21,788 ∂2,243 ..........................Enhanced surveillance ....................................................................................................................................... 66,174 63,379 63,379 ¥2,795 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 143,078 150,571 150,571 ∂7,493 ..........................

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high-yield campaign: 

Ignition ............................................................................................................................................................... 109,888 84,172 84,172 ¥25,716 ..........................Diagnostics, cryogenics, and experimental support .......................................................................................... 86,259 81,942 81,942 ¥4,317 ..........................Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion ......................................................................................................... 4,997 6,044 6,044 ∂1,047 ..........................Joint program in high-energy density laboratory plasmas ................................................................................ 9,100 8,334 8,334 ¥766 ..........................Facility operations and target production ......................................................................................................... 266,030 264,691 264,691 ¥1,339 ..........................Support of other stockpile programs ................................................................................................................. .......................... 14,817 14,817 ∂14,817 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 476,274 460,000 460,000 ¥16,274 ..........................

Advanced simulation and computing .................................................................................................................................. 620,000 600,000 620,000 .......................... ∂20,000 

Readiness campaign: 

Nonnuclear readiness ......................................................................................................................................... 65,000 64,681 64,681 ¥319 ..........................Tritium readiness ............................................................................................................................................... 63,591 65,414 65,414 ∂1,823 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 128,591 130,095 130,095 ∂1,504 ..........................Subtotal, Campaigns ..................................................................................................................................... 1,701,982 1,690,770 1,710,770 ∂8,788 ∂20,000 
120 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF]: 

Operations of facilities: 

Kansas City Plant ............................................................................................................................................... 156,217 163,602 163,602 ∂7,385 ..........................Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ........................................................................................................... 83,990 89,048 89,048 ∂5,058 ..........................Los Alamos National Laboratory ........................................................................................................................ 318,526 335,978 335,978 ∂17,452 ..........................Nevada Test Site ................................................................................................................................................ 97,559 115,697 115,697 ∂18,138 ..........................Pantex ................................................................................................................................................................. 164,848 172,020 172,020 ∂7,172 ..........................Sandia National Laboratory ................................................................................................................................ 120,708 167,384 167,384 ∂46,676 ..........................Savannah River Site ........................................................................................................................................... 97,767 120,577 120,577 ∂22,810 ..........................Y–12 Productions Plant ..................................................................................................................................... 246,001 255,097 255,097 ∂9,096 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,285,616 1,419,403 1,419,403 ∂133,787 ..........................

Program readiness ...................................................................................................................................................... 74,180 .......................... .......................... ¥74,180 ..........................Material recycle and recovery ..................................................................................................................................... 78,000 .......................... .......................... ¥78,000 ..........................Containers ................................................................................................................................................................... 28,979 .......................... .......................... ¥28,979 ..........................Storage ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31,272 .......................... .......................... ¥31,272 ..........................Science, technology, and engineering capability support .......................................................................................... .......................... 166,945 166,945 ∂166,945 ..........................Nuclear operations capability support ........................................................................................................................ .......................... 203,346 203,346 ∂203,346 ..........................

Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities ............................................................................................ 1,498,047 1,789,694 1,789,694 ∂291,647 ..........................

Construction: 

13–D–301 Electrical infrastructure upgrades, LANL/LLNL ................................................................................ .......................... 23,000 23,000 ∂23,000 ..........................12–D–301 TRU waste facility project, LANL ..................................................................................................... 9,881 24,204 24,204 ∂14,323 ..........................11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment project II, LANL .............................................................................................. 10,000 8,889 8,889 ¥1,111 ..........................10–D–501 Nuclear facilities risk reduction Y–12 National security complex, Oakridge, Tennessee ............... 35,387 17,909 17,909 ¥17,478 ..........................09–D–404, Test capabilities revitalization II, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico ............................................................................................................................................................ 25,168 11,332 11,332 ¥13,836 ..........................

08–D–802 High-explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas ...................................................... 66,960 24,800 24,800 ¥42,160 ..........................07–D–140 Project engineering and design [PED], various locations ............................................................... 3,518 .......................... .......................... ¥3,518 ..........................06–D–141 Project engineering and design [PED], Y–12 Uranium Processing Facility, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee ....................................................................................................................................................... 160,194 340,000 340,000 ∂179,806 ..........................
121 

04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 

New Mexico .................................................................................................................................................... 200,000 .......................... .......................... ¥200,000 ..........................

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................................... 511,108 450,134 450,134 ¥60,974 ..........................Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities .............................................................................. 2,009,155 2,239,828 2,239,828 ∂230,673 ..........................

Secure transportation asset: 

Operations and equipment .......................................................................................................................................... 145,274 114,965 114,965 ¥30,309 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 98,002 104,396 104,396 ∂6,394 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 243,276 219,361 219,361 ¥23,915 ..........................

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response ........................................................................................................................ 222,147 247,552 247,552 ∂25,405 ..........................Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program ........................................................................................................ 96,380 .......................... .......................... ¥96,380 ..........................Site stewardship ................................................................................................................................................................... 78,680 90,001 88,249 ∂9,569 ¥1,752 

Safeguards and security: 

Defense nuclear security .................................................................................................................................... 686,252 643,285 643,285 ¥42,967 ..........................Construction: 

08–D–701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los Alamos National Laboratory ............................ 11,752 .......................... .......................... ¥11,752 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear security .................................................................................................. 698,004 643,285 643,285 ¥54,719 ..........................

Cybersecurity ............................................................................................................................................................... 126,614 .......................... .......................... ¥126,614 ..........................

Total, Safeguards and security .............................................................................................................................. 824,618 643,285 643,285 ¥181,333 ..........................

NNSA CIO activities ..................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 155,022 155,022 ∂155,022 ..........................Legacy contractor pensions ......................................................................................................................................... 168,232 185,000 185,000 ∂16,768 ..........................National security applications .................................................................................................................................... 10,000 18,248 10,000 .......................... ¥8,248 Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥19,877 .......................... .......................... ∂19,877 ..........................

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 7,214,120 7,577,341 7,577,341 ∂363,221 ..........................

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D ................................................................................................................................ 356,150 548,186 418,186 ∂62,036 ¥130,000 Nonproliferation and international security ......................................................................................................................... 155,305 150,119 150,119 ¥5,186 ..........................International nuclear materials protection and cooperation ............................................................................................... 571,639 311,000 368,000 ¥203,639 ∂57,000 Fissile materials disposition: 

U.S. plutonium disposition .......................................................................................................................................... 205,632 498,979 498,979 ∂293,347 ..........................U.S. uranium disposition ............................................................................................................................................. 26,000 29,736 29,736 ∂3,736 ..........................
122 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Construction: 

MOX fuel fabrication facilities: 

99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, South Carolina ................................. 435,172 388,802 388,802 ¥46,370 ..........................99–D–141–02 Waste solidification building, Savannah River, South Carolina ...................................... 17,582 .......................... .......................... ¥17,582 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................................................... 452,754 388,802 388,802 ¥63,952 ..........................Subtotal, U.S. fissle materials disposition ...................................................................................... 684,386 917,517 917,517 ∂233,131 ..........................

Russian surplus materials disposition ....................................................................................................................... 1,000 3,788 3,788 ∂2,788 ..........................

Total, Fissile materials disposition ........................................................................................................................ 685,386 921,305 921,305 ∂235,919 ..........................

Global threat reduction initiative ......................................................................................................................................... 500,000 466,021 539,021 ∂39,021 ∂73,000 Legacy contractor pensions .................................................................................................................................................. 55,823 62,000 62,000 ∂6,177 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................................................................... 2,324,303 2,458,631 2,458,631 ∂134,328 ..........................

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥21,000 .......................... .......................... ∂21,000 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission ....................................................................................................................... ¥7,423 .......................... .......................... ∂7,423 ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ..................................................................................................... 2,295,880 2,458,631 2,458,631 ∂162,751 ..........................

NAVAL REACTORS 

Naval reactors development ................................................................................................................................................. 421,000 418,072 418,072 ¥2,928 ..........................OHIO replacement reactor systems development ................................................................................................................ 121,300 89,700 89,700 ¥31,600 ..........................S8G Prototype refueling ........................................................................................................................................................ 99,500 121,100 121,100 ∂21,600 ..........................Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 358,300 366,961 366,961 ∂8,661 ..........................Construction: 

13–D–905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL .......................................................................................... .......................... 8,890 8,890 ∂8,890 ..........................13–D–904 KS Radiological work and storage building, KSO .................................................................................... .......................... 2,000 2,000 ∂2,000 ..........................13–D–903, KS prototype staff building, KSO ............................................................................................................. .......................... 14,000 14,000 ∂14,000 ..........................10–D–903, Security upgrades, KAPL .......................................................................................................................... 100 19,000 19,000 ∂18,900 ..........................
123 

10–D–904, NRF infrastructure upgrades, Idaho ........................................................................................................ 12,000 .......................... .......................... ¥12,000 ..........................08–D–190, Project engineering and design, Expended Core Facility M–290 recovering discharge station, Naval 

Reactor Facility, Idaho ............................................................................................................................................ 27,800 5,700 5,700 ¥22,100 ..........................

07–D–190, Materials research tech complex [MRTC] ................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................ 39,900 49,590 49,590 ∂9,690 ..........................

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 40,000 43,212 43,212 ∂3,212 ..........................

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ........................................................................................................................................ 1,080,000 1,088,635 1,088,635 ∂8,635 ..........................

Office of the Administrator .................................................................................................................................................. 410,000 411,279 386,279 ¥23,721 ¥25,000 

TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................... 11,000,000 11,535,886 11,510,886 ∂510,886 ¥25,000 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Closure sites ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5,375 1,990 1,990 ¥3,385 ..........................Hanford Site: 

Central plateau remediation ....................................................................................................................................... 546,890 558,820 570,920 ∂24,030 ∂12,100 River corridor and other cleanup operations .............................................................................................................. 386,822 389,347 389,347 ∂2,525 ..........................Richland community and regulatory support ............................................................................................................. 19,540 15,156 15,156 ¥4,384 ..........................

Total, Hanford Site .................................................................................................................................................. 953,252 963,323 975,423 ∂22,171 ∂12,100 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition ......................................................................................................................... 382,769 396,607 396,607 ∂13,838 ..........................Idaho community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 4,100 3,000 3,000 ¥1,100 ..........................

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................ 386,869 399,607 399,607 ∂12,738 ..........................

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites ........................................................................................................................................ 282,393 334,268 334,268 ∂51,875 ..........................

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites ................................................................................................................. 282,393 334,268 334,268 ∂51,875 ..........................

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

Building 3019 .............................................................................................................................................................. 37,000 .......................... .......................... ¥37,000 ..........................OR Nuclear facility D&D .............................................................................................................................................. 69,100 67,525 99,525 ∂30,425 ∂32,000 OR cleanup and disposition ........................................................................................................................................ 87,000 109,470 109,470 ∂22,470 ..........................OR reservation community and regulatory support .................................................................................................... 6,409 4,500 4,500 ¥1,909 ..........................

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation ................................................................................................................................. 199,509 181,495 213,495 ∂13,986 ∂32,000 
124 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant: 01–D–416 A–E/ORP–0060/Major construction ........................................................................................................... .......................... 690,000 690,000 ∂690,000 ..........................Waste treatment and immobilization plant 01–D–16 A–D ........................................................................................ 430,000 .......................... .......................... ¥430,000 ..........................Waste treatment and immobilization plant 01–D–16 E ............................................................................................ 310,000 .......................... .......................... ¥310,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant ........................................................................................... 740,000 690,000 690,000 ¥50,000 ..........................

Tank Farm activities: 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ........................................................................................ 445,000 482,113 482,113 ∂37,113 ..........................

Total, Office of River Protection .................................................................................................................... 1,185,000 1,172,113 1,172,113 ¥12,887 ..........................

Savannah River site: 

Savannah River community and regulatory support .................................................................................................. 9,584 16,584 16,584 ∂7,000 ..........................Savannah River site risk management operations .................................................................................................... 343,586 444,089 444,089 ∂100,503 ..........................Radioactive liquid tank waste: 

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................ 667,081 698,294 698,294 ∂31,213 ..........................

Construction: 

05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River .............................................................................. 170,071 22,549 22,549 ¥147,522 ..........................PE&D Glass Waste Storage Building #3 ............................................................................................................ 3,500 .......................... .......................... ¥3,500 ..........................

Subtotal, Radioactive liquid tank waste ....................................................................................................... 840,652 720,843 720,843 ¥119,809 ..........................Total, Savannah River site ............................................................................................................................ 1,193,822 1,181,516 1,181,516 ¥12,306 ..........................

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ................................................................................................................................................... 215,134 198,010 208,896 ¥6,238 ∂10,886 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 321,628 323,504 323,504 ∂1,876 ..........................Program support ................................................................................................................................................................... 20,380 18,279 18,279 ¥2,101 ..........................Safeguards and Security ...................................................................................................................................................... 252,019 237,019 237,019 ¥15,000 ..........................Technology development ....................................................................................................................................................... 11,000 20,000 20,000 ∂9,000 ..........................Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ....................................................................................................................... .......................... 463,000 .......................... .......................... ¥463,000 

Subtotal, Defense Environmental Clean up ........................................................................................................... 5,026,381 5,494,124 5,086,110 ∂59,729 ¥408,014 
125 

Use of unobligated balances ............................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ..........................Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥3,381 ¥12,123 ¥12,123 ¥8,742 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission ....................................................................................................................... ¥20,050 .......................... .......................... ∂20,050 ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP ........................................................................................................ 5,002,950 5,472,001 5,063,987 ∂61,037 ¥408,014 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Health, safety, and security: 

Health, safety, and security ........................................................................................................................................ 335,436 139,325 139,325 ¥196,111 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 102,000 106,175 106,175 ∂4,175 ..........................

Total, Health, safety, and security ......................................................................................................................... 437,436 245,500 245,500 ¥191,936 ..........................

Specialized security activities .............................................................................................................................................. .......................... 188,619 188,619 ∂188,619 ..........................Office of Legacy Management: 

Legacy management ................................................................................................................................................... 157,514 164,477 164,477 ∂6,963 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 12,086 13,469 13,469 ∂1,383 ..........................

Total, Office of Legacy Management ...................................................................................................................... 169,600 177,946 177,946 ∂8,346 ..........................

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security .............................................................................................................................. 93,350 .......................... .......................... ¥93,350 ..........................Defense-related administrative support .............................................................................................................................. 118,836 118,836 118,836 .......................... ..........................Office of hearings and appeals ........................................................................................................................................... 4,142 4,801 4,801 ∂659 ..........................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................... 823,364 735,702 735,702 ¥87,662 ..........................TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 16,826,314 17,743,589 17,310,575 ∂484,261 ¥433,014 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 1

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Purchase power and wheeling ........................................................................................................................... 114,870 103,170 103,170 ¥11,700 ..........................Program direction ............................................................................................................................................... 8,428 8,732 8,732 ∂304 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance .......................................................................................................... 123,298 111,902 111,902 ¥11,396 ..........................

Less alternative financing [PPW] ................................................................................................................................ ¥14,708 ¥15,474 ¥15,474 ¥766 ..........................Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥108,590 ¥96,428 ¥96,428 ∂12,162 ..........................
126 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Operating expenses ............................................................................................................................................ 14,346 11,505 11,505 ¥2,841 ..........................Purchase power and wheeling ........................................................................................................................... 50,000 51,000 51,000 ∂1,000 ..........................Program direction ............................................................................................................................................... 31,889 28,593 28,593 ¥3,296 ..........................Construction ....................................................................................................................................................... 10,772 7,931 7,931 ¥2,841 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance .......................................................................................................... 107,007 99,029 99,029 ¥7,978 ..........................

Less alternative financing .......................................................................................................................................... ¥21,997 ¥13,829 ¥13,829 ∂8,168 ..........................Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥73,118 ¥73,308 ¥73,308 ¥190 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 11,892 11,892 11,892 .......................... ..........................

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Construction and rehabilitation ......................................................................................................................... 110,449 83,475 83,475 ¥26,974 ..........................Operation and maintenance ............................................................................................................................... 72,863 71,855 71,855 ¥1,008 ..........................Purchase power and wheeling ........................................................................................................................... 471,535 422,225 422,225 ¥49,310 ..........................Program direction ............................................................................................................................................... 205,247 204,227 204,227 ¥1,020 ..........................Utah mitigation and conservation ..................................................................................................................... 3,375 3,375 3,375 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance .......................................................................................................... 863,469 785,157 785,157 ¥78,312 ..........................

Less alternative financing .......................................................................................................................................... ¥266,207 ¥245,280 ¥245,280 ∂20,927 ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 108–477, Public Law 109–103) ......................................................................... ¥306,541 ¥242,858 ¥242,858 ∂63,683 ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) ............................................................................................................... ¥4,821 ¥5,099 ¥5,099 ¥278 ..........................Offsetting collections (for program direction) ............................................................................................................ ¥156,609 ¥159,703 ¥159,703 ¥3,094 ..........................Offsetting collections (for O&M) ................................................................................................................................. ¥33,323 ¥36,087 ¥36,087 ¥2,764 ..........................
127 

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 95,968 96,130 96,130 ∂162 ..........................

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND 

Operation and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................ 4,169 5,555 5,555 ∂1,386 ..........................Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥3,949 ¥5,335 ¥5,335 ¥1,386 ..........................

TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND ................................................................... 220 220 220 .......................... ..........................TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ....................................................................................................... 108,080 108,242 108,242 ∂162 ..........................

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ...................................................................................................................... 304,600 304,500 304,500 ¥100 ..........................FERC revenues ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥304,600 ¥304,500 ¥304,500 ∂100 ..........................

GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ............................................................................................................... 25,748,081 27,666,895 27,127,564 ∂1,379,483 ¥539,331 

(Total amount appropriated) ......................................................................................................................... (26,639,290 ) (28,033,562 ) (27,203,231 ) (∂563,941 ) (¥830,331 ) (Rescissions) .................................................................................................................................................. (¥891,209 ) (¥366,667 ) (¥75,667 ) (∂815,542 ) (∂291,000 ) 

SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy .............................................................................................................................. 1,809,638 2,267,333 1,916,068 ∂106,430 ¥351,265 Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................................................................................................. 139,103 143,015 143,015 ∂3,912 ..........................Nuclear energy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 765,391 770,445 785,445 ∂20,054 ∂15,000 Fossil energy research and development ............................................................................................................................. 346,703 420,575 460,575 ∂113,872 ∂40,000 Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves .............................................................................................................................. 14,909 14,909 14,909 .......................... ..........................Strategic petroleum reserves ............................................................................................................................................... 192,704 195,609 195,609 ∂2,905 ..........................Elk Hills School Lands Fund ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 15,580 15,580 ∂15,580 ..........................SPR Petroleum Account ........................................................................................................................................................ ¥500,000 ¥291,000 .......................... ∂500,000 ∂291,000 Northeast home heating oil reserve ..................................................................................................................................... ¥89,881 4,119 4,119 ∂94,000 ..........................Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 105,000 116,365 116,365 ∂11,365 ..........................Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................................................................................................... 235,306 198,506 228,506 ¥6,800 ∂30,000 Uranium enrichment D&D fund ........................................................................................................................................... 472,180 442,493 442,493 ¥29,687 ..........................Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4,873,634 4,992,052 4,909,000 ∂35,366 ¥83,052 Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ........................................................................................................................ 275,000 350,000 312,000 ∂37,000 ¥38,000 Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan program .............................................................................................. 6,000 9,000 9,000 ∂3,000 ..........................Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 126,000 122,595 112,595 ¥13,405 ¥10,000 Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 42,000 43,468 43,468 ∂1,468 ..........................
128 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Atomic energy defense activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................. 7,214,120 7,577,341 7,577,341 ∂363,221 ..........................Defense nuclear nonproliferation ....................................................................................................................... 2,295,880 2,458,631 2,458,631 ∂162,751 ..........................Naval reactors .................................................................................................................................................... 1,080,000 1,088,635 1,088,635 ∂8,635 ..........................Office of the Administrator ................................................................................................................................ 410,000 411,279 386,279 ¥23,721 ¥25,000 

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration ...................................................................................... 11,000,000 11,535,886 11,510,886 ∂510,886 ¥25,000 

Defense environmental cleanup .................................................................................................................................. 5,002,950 5,472,001 5,063,987 ∂61,037 ¥408,014 Other defense activities .............................................................................................................................................. 823,364 735,702 735,702 ¥87,662 ..........................

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 16,826,314 17,743,589 17,310,575 ∂484,261 ¥433,014 

Power marketing administrations:1

Southwestern Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ 11,892 11,892 11,892 .......................... ..........................Western Area Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ 95,968 96,130 96,130 ∂162 ..........................Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............................................................................................. 220 220 220 .......................... ..........................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 108,080 108,242 108,242 ∂162 ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 304,600 304,500 304,500 ¥100 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥304,600 ¥304,500 ¥304,500 ∂100 ..........................

Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy .............................................................................................. 25,748,081 27,666,895 27,127,564 ∂1,379,483 ¥539,331 

1 Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power purchase and wheeling. 
129 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

The following list of general provisions is recommended by the 

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which 

have been included in previous Energy and Water Appropriations 

Acts and new provisions as follows: 

Section 301. Language is included on unexpended balances. 

Section 302. Language is included specifically authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2013 Intelligence Authorization Act. 

Section 303. The Committee has included a provision related to 

nuclear safety requirements. 

Section 304. The Committee has included language related to 

independent cost estimates. 

Section 305. Language is included related to the provision of uranium. 

Section 306. The Committee has included a provision modifying 

an annual review. 

Section 307. Language is included related to transfer authority. 

Section 308. The Committee has included a provision on appointments. 

Section 309. The Committee has included a provision on hiring. 

Section 310. The Committee has included a provision on mandatory funding. 

Section 311. The Committee has included a provision on the eligibility for tribal energy activities. 

Section 312. The Committee has included a provision on a pilot 

program related to consolidated storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

Section 313. The Committee has included a provision to repeal 

a reporting requirement. 

Section 314. The Committee has included a provision repealing 

a reporting requirement. 

Section 315. The Committee has included a provision amending 

a reporting requirement. 
(130) 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $68,263,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 64,850,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 64,850,000 

Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission 

[ARC] is an economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. 

For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends $64,850,000 for 

the ARC. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $29,130,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 29,415,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,425,000 

The Committee recommends $27,425,000 for the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board. The Committee supports the Board’s efforts 

to independently review the design and construction of new defense 

nuclear facilities to ensure that eventual operation of these facilities will be safe for workers and the public. However, the budget 

request did not take into account a decreasing workload for the 

Board. The primary justification of an increasing budget was a 

need for additional FTEs to review the design and construction of 

two new, major nuclear facilities, which combined were estimated 

to cost up to $8,000,000,000—the Pit Disassembly and Conversion 

Facility [PDCF] at Savannah River Site and the Chemistry and 

Metallurgy Research Replacement [CMRR] nuclear facility at Los 

Alamos National Laboratory. PDCF has been terminated and construction of CMRR has been delayed by at least 5 years. The Committee recommendation provides funding to support oversight activities over the remaining eight major construction projects. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $11,677,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 11,315,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,315,000 

For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends 

$11,315,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to assist the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and opportunities for 

economic development. 
131 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $10,679,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 10,165,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,165,000 

The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job training, and 

other economic development services in rural areas throughout 

Alaska. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends 

$10,165,000. 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $1,497,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,425,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,425,000 

The Committee recommends $1,425,000 for the Northern Border 

Regional Commission. 

SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $250,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends no funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission consistent with the budget request. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $1,027,240,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,042,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,042,200,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ¥$899,726,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥914,832,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥914,832,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $127,514,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 127,368,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 127,368,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission for fiscal year 2013 is $1,042,200,000. This amount is 

offset by estimated revenues of $914,832,000 resulting in a net appropriation of $127,368,000. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $10,860,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 11,020,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,870,000 
132 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. ¥$9,774,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥9,918,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥9,918,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $1,086,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,102,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,952,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $1,952,000. 

The increase of $850,000 is provided for the Inspector General to 

serve as the inspector general for the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board [Board]. The funding for the inspector general services for the Board is not offset by receipts. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2012 ............................................................................. $3,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 3,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,400,000 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to 

evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the Department of 

Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Board reports its 

findings no fewer than two times a year to Congress and to the 

Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends $3,400,000. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................... $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ........................................................................... 3,084,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

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. The Committee recommends $1,000,000. The Committee notes that only one joint venture is still pursuing the design and construction of a natural gas 

pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48. This joint venture continues 

with extensive financial support from the State of Alaska. The 

Committee further notes that the Office of the Federal Coordinator 

is legally allowed to receive funding from the companies for its 

work. The Committee urges the agency to take advantage of this 

potential funding source as the work of the agency directly benefits 

the companies. 

GENERAL PROVISION 

Section 401. The Committee has included a provision that clarifies that the Denali Commission has authority to receive conditional gifts and authority to receive transfers from other Federal 

agencies. The provision also requires the Commission to submit an 

annual report on conditional gifts and transfers. 
(133) 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the 

Committee. 

Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds provided in this bill from being used to influence congressional action. 

Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority under 

this act. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

In fiscal year 2013, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as 

amended, the following information provides the definition of the 

term ‘‘program, project or activity’’ for departments and agencies 

under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation bill. The term ‘‘program, project or activity’’ shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2013 and the report accompanying the bill. 

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage 

reduction required for fiscal year 2013 pursuant to the provisions 

of Public Law 99–177 to all items specified in the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on Appropriations in 

support of the fiscal year 2013 budget estimates as modified by 

congressional action. 
(134) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered 

under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full disclosure. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2013: 

Corps of Engineers.—Individual studies and projects proposed for 

appropriations within this bill are specifically authorized by law. 

The appropriation accounts where the funding for the studies and 

projects are recommended are not considered to be authorized as 

there is no originating act providing for these appropriation accounts. 

Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply Activities: 

Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal, Naval 

Petroleum and Oil Shale Research; 

Health, Safety and Security; 

Non-Defense Environmental Management; 

Office of Science; 

Department of Administration; 

National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; Office of the Administrator; 

Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration 

Completion; 

Other Defense Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Waste Fund; 

Office of Security and Performance Assurance; 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 

Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern, Southwestern, 

Western Area; and 

Energy Information Administration. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on April 26, 2012, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported en bloc an original bill (S. 

2375) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, 
135 

and reported an original bill (S. 2465) making appropriations for 

energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, provided, 

that each bill be subject to further amendment and that each bill 

be consistent with its spending allocations, by a recorded vote of 

28–1, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Inouye Mr. Johnson (WI) 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson (SD) 

Ms. Landrieu 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Brown 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Coats 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the Committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law proposed to 

be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman. 
136 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 84—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

SUBCHAPTER II—ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT 

§ 7135. Energy Information Administration. 

(a) Establishment; appointment of Administrator; compensation; qualifications; duties 

* * * * * * * 

(i) Manufacturers energy consumption survey 

(1) The Administrator shall conduct and publish the results of 

a survey of energy consumption in the manufacturing industries in the United States at least øonce every two years¿ once 

every four years and in a manner designed to protect the confidentiality of individual responses. In conducting the survey, 

the Administrator shall collect information, including— 

* * * * * * * 

(k) Survey procedure 

* * * * * * * 

(1) conduct surveys of residential and commercial energy use 

at least øonce every 3 years¿ once every four years, and make 

such information available to the public; 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 134—ENERGY POLICY 

SUBCHAPTER VII—GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 

ø§ 13385. National inventory and voluntary reporting of 

greenhouse gases 

ø(a) National inventory 

øNot later than one year after October 24, 1992, the Secretary, 

through the Energy Information Administration, shall develop, 

based on data available to, and obtained by, the Energy Information Administration, an inventory of the national aggregate emissions of each greenhouse gas for each calendar year of the baseline 

period of 1987 through 1990. The Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall annually update and analyze such 

inventory using available data. This subsection does not provide 

any new data collection authority. 

ø(b) Voluntary reporting 

ø(1) Issuance of guidelines 

øNot later than 18 months after October 24, 1992, the Secretary shall, after opportunity for public comment, issue guidelines for the voluntary collection and reporting of information 

on sources of greenhouse gases. Such guidelines shall establish 

procedures for the accurate voluntary reporting of information 

on— 

ø(A) greenhouse gas emissions— 
137 

ø(i) for the baseline period of 1987 through 1990; and 

ø(ii) for subsequent calendar years on an annual basis; 

ø(B) annual reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and 

carbon fixation achieved through any measures, including 

fuel switching, forest management practices, tree planting, 

use of renewable energy, manufacture or use of vehicles 

with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, appliance efficiency, energy efficiency, methane recovery, cogeneration, 

chlorofluorocarbon capture and replacement, and power 

plant heat rate improvement; 

ø(C) reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved as a 

result of— 

ø(i) voluntary reductions; 

ø(ii) plant or facility closings; and 

ø(iii) State or Federal requirements; and 

ø(D) an aggregate calculation of greenhouse gas emissions 

by each reporting entity. 

øSuch guidelines shall also establish procedures for taking into 

account the differential radiative activity and atmospheric lifetimes of each greenhouse gas. 

ø(2) Reporting procedures 

øThe Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall develop forms for voluntary reporting under the 

guidelines established under paragraph (1), and shall make 

such forms available to entities wishing to report such information. Persons reporting under this subsection shall certify the 

accuracy of the information reported. 

ø(3) Confidentiality 

øTrade secret and commercial or financial information that 

is privileged or confidential shall be protected as provided in 

section 552(b)(4) of title 5. 

ø(4) Establishment of data base 

øNot later than 18 months after October 24, 1992, the Secretary, through the Administrator of the Energy Information 

Administration, shall establish a data base comprised of information voluntarily reported under this subsection. Such information may be used by the reporting entity to demonstrate 

achieved reductions of greenhouse gases. 

ø(c) Consultation 

øIn carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult, as 

appropriate, with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.¿ 
138 

TITLE 43—PUBLIC LANDS 

CHAPTER 40—RECLAMATION STATES 

SUBCHAPTER I—DROUGHT PROGRAM 

§ 2214. Applicable period of drought program 

(a) In general 

* * * * * * * 

(c) Termination of authority 

The authorities established under this subchapter shall terminate on September 30, ø2012¿ 2017. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS 

PROVISIONS 

§ 2241. Authorization of appropriations 

Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title (relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, California), 

there is authorized to be appropriated not more than ø$90,000,000¿ 

$100,000,000 in total for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 

ø2012¿ 2017. 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1988, PUBLIC 

LAW 100–676 

SEC. 3. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(1) LOWER MISSION CREEK, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) LOWER OHIO RIVER, ILLINOIS AND KENTUCKY.—The 

project for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks and Dams 52 

and 53, Illinois and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 20, 1986, at a total cost of ø$775,000,000¿ 

$2,918,000,000, with a first Federal cost of ø$775,000,000¿ 

$2,918,000,000, and with the costs of construction of the 

project to be paid one-half from amounts appropriated from the 

general fund of the Treasury and one-half from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1992, PUBLIC 

LAW 102–580 

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

* * * * * * * 
139 

(1) SOUTHEAST ALASKA HARBORS OF REFUGE, ALASKA.— 

* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(8) KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION, FLORIDA.—The project 

for the ecosystem restoration of the Kissimmee River, Florida: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 17, 1992, øat a 

total cost of $426,885,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$139,943,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$286,942,000. The Secretary is further authorized to construct¿ 

and the Kissimmee River headwaters revitalization project in 

accordance with the report prepared under section 1135 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4251– 

4252) for such headwaters project and any modifications as are 

recommended by the Secretary based on the benefits derived 

for the environmental restoration of the Kissimmee River 

basinø, at a total cost of $92,210,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $46,105,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$46,105,000.¿. The toal cost of the ecosystem restoration and 

headwaters revitalization projects is $519,095,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $186,048,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $333,047,000. The Secretary shall take such action 

as may be necessary to ensure that implementation of the 

project to restore the Kissimmee River will maintain the same 

level of flood protection as is provided by the current flood control project. 

OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999, PUBLIC LAW 

105–277 

DIVISION C—OTHER MATTERS 

TITLE III—DENALI COMMISSION 

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 305. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION. 

(a) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.— 

* * * * * * * 

ø(c) GIFTS.—The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 

gifts or donations of services or property.¿ 

(c) GIFTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 

Commission, on behalf of the United States, may accept use, 

and dispose of gifts or donations of services, property, or money 

for purposes of 5 carrying out this Act. 

(2) CONDITIONAL.—With respect to conditional gifts— 

(A)(i) the Commission, on behalf of the United States, 

may accept conditional gifts for purposes of carrying out 

this Act, if approved by the Federal Cochairperson; and 
140 

(ii) the principal of and income from any such conditional gift shall be held, invested, reinvested, and used in 

accordance with the condition applicable to the gift; but 

(B) no gift shall be accepted that is conditioned on any 

expenditure not to be funded from the gift or from the income generated by the gift unless the expenditure has been 

approved by Act of Congress; and 

(C) the Commission shall submit an annual report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that 

describes the amount and terms of conditional gifts, the 

manner in which such conditional gifts were or shall be 

used, and any results achieved by such use. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 310. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to 

the Commission to carry out the duties of the Commission consistent with the purposes of this title and pursuant to the work 

plan approved under section 4 under this Act, $20,000,000 for fiscal 

year 1999, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 

2000, 2001, 2002, and 2008. 

(b) AVAILABILITY.—Any sums appropriated under the authorization contained in this section shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 311. TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES. 

(a) The Commission may accept transfers of funds from other 

Federal agencies for purposes of this Act. 

(b) Any Federal agency authorized to carry out an activity that 

is within the authority of the Commission may transfer to the Commission any appropriated funds available for such activity. Funds 

transferred to the Commission under this section shall be merged 

with and be available for the same time period as the commission’s 

appropriation. 

(c) The Commission shall submit a report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing and summarizing 

all transfers to and expenditures from the Denali Commission under 

this section. 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, PUBLIC 

LAW 106–554 

DIVISION B 

TITLE I 

SEC. 110. SAN GABRIEL BASIN, CALIFORNIA. (a) SAN GABRIEL

BASIN RESTORATION.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) PURPOSES OF FUND.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

(i) * * * 
141 

(ii) to operate and maintain any project constructed 

under this section for such period as the Secretary determines, but not to exceed ø10¿ 15 years, following the initial date of operation of the project. 

REVISED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 

2007, PUBLIC LAW 110–5 

‘‘DIVISION B—CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 

2007 

‘‘TITLE II—ELIMINATION OF EARMARKS, ADJUSTMENTS IN 

FUNDING, AND OTHER PROVISIONS 

‘‘CHAPTER 3—ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

‘‘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 øan 

annual review¿ a review every three years of the Department’s execution of the program under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. The results of the independent audit and the Comptroller 

General’s review shall be provided directly to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT, 2007, 

PUBLIC LAW 110–140 

TITLE VIII—IMPROVED MANAGEMENT 

OF ENERGY POLICY 

Subtitle A—Management Improvements 

øSEC. 804. COORDINATION OF PLANNED REFINERY OUTAGES. 

ø(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

ø(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means 

the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration. 

ø(2) PLANNED REFINERY OUTAGE.— 

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘planned refinery outage’’ 

means a removal, scheduled before the date on which the 

removal occurs, of a refinery, or any unit of a refinery, 

from service for maintenance, repair, or modification. 

ø(B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘planned refinery outage’’ 

does not include any necessary and unplanned removal of 

a refinery, or any unit of a refinery, from service as a result of a component failure, safety hazard, emergency, or 

action reasonably anticipated to be necessary to prevent 

such events. 
142 

ø(3) REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCT.—The term ‘‘refined petroleum product’’ means any gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil, lubricating oil, liquid petroleum gas, or other petroleum distillate 

that is produced through the refining or processing of crude oil 

or an oil derived from tar sands, shale, or coal. 

ø(4) REFINERY.—The term ‘‘refinery’’ means a facility used 

in the production of a refined petroleum product through distillation, cracking, or any other process. 

ø(b) REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION.—The 

Administrator shall, on an ongoing basis— 

ø(1) review information on refinery outages that is available from commercial reporting services; 

ø(2) analyze that information to determine whether the 

scheduling of a refinery outage may nationally or regionally 

substantially affect the price or supply of any refined petroleum product by— 

ø(A) decreasing the production of the refined petroleum product; and 

ø(B) causing or contributing to a retail or wholesale 

supply shortage or disruption; 

ø(3) not less frequently than twice each year, submit to the 

Secretary a report describing the results of the review and 

analysis under paragraphs (1) and (2); and 

ø(4) specifically alert the Secretary of any refinery outage 

that the Administrator determines may nationally or regionally substantially affect the price or supply of a refined petroleum product. 

ø(c) ACTION BY SECRETARY.—On a determination by the Secretary, based on a report or alert under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (b), that a refinery outage may affect the price or supply of 

a refined petroleum product, the Secretary shall make available to 

refinery operators information on planned refinery outages to encourage reductions of the quantity of refinery capacity that is out 

of service at any time. 

ø(d) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall alter any existing legal obligation or responsibility of a refinery operator, or create any legal right of action, nor shall this section authorize the 

Secretary— 

ø(1) to prohibit a refinery operator from conducting a 

planned refinery outage; or 

ø(2) to require a refinery operator to continue to operate 

a refinery.¿ 
143 

OMNIBUS PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT, 2009, 

PUBLIC LAW 111–11 

TITLE X—WATER SETTLEMENTS 

Subtitle A—San Joaquin River Restoration 

Settlement 

PART I—SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 

RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ACT 

SEC. 10009. APPROPRIATIONS; SETTLEMENT FUND. 

(a) IMPLEMENTATION COSTS.— 

* * * * * * * 

(c) FUND.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

(2) AVAILABILITY.—All funds deposited into the Fund pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) are 

authorized for appropriation to implement the Settlement and 

this part, in addition to the authorization provided in subsections (a) and (b) of section 10203, except that $88,000,000 

of such funds are available for expenditure without further appropriation; provided that after øOctober 1, 2019, all funds in 

the Fund shall be available for expenditure without further appropriation.¿ October 1, 2014, all funds in the Fund shall be 

available for expenditure on an annual basis in an amount not 

to exceed $40,000,000 without further appropriation. 
144 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution 

for 2013: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Discretionary ........................................................................ 33,361 33,361 41,110 1 41,110 

Security ....................................................................... 17,550 17,550 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................................................. 15,811 15,811 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2013 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 19,775 

2014 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 9,327 

2015 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2,990 

2016 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 599 

2017 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 533 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2013 ......................................................................................... NA 80 NA 17 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
145 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2012 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2012 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Investigations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 125,000 102,000 125,000 .......................... ∂23,000 Construction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,694,000 1,471,000 1,700,000 ∂6,000 ∂229,000 Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................................................................................................................................ 252,000 234,000 253,000 ∂1,000 ∂19,000 

Disaster relief category (Public Law 112–77) ............................................................................................................ 802,000 .......................... .......................... ¥802,000 ..........................

Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................... 2,412,000 2,398,000 2,404,000 ¥8,000 ∂6,000 

Disaster relief category (Public Law 112–77) ............................................................................................................ 534,000 .......................... .......................... ¥534,000 ..........................

Regulatory Program .............................................................................................................................................................. 193,000 205,000 199,000 ∂6,000 ¥6,000 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] ............................................................................................... 109,000 104,000 109,000 .......................... ∂5,000 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .............................................................................................................................. 27,000 30,000 30,000 ∂3,000 ..........................

Disaster relief category (Public Law 112–77) ............................................................................................................ 388,000 .......................... .......................... ¥388,000 ..........................

Expenses ............................................................................................................................................................................... 185,000 182,000 182,000 ¥3,000 ..........................Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ..................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 .......................... ..........................

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil .......................................................................................................... 6,726,000 4,731,000 5,007,000 ¥1,719,000 ∂276,000 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (5,002,000 ) (4,731,000 ) (5,007,000 ) (∂5,000 ) (∂276,000 ) Disaster relief category .................................................................................................................................. (1,724,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥1,724,000 ) ..........................

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Central Utah Project Completion Account 

Central Utah Project construction ........................................................................................................................................ 25,154 18,500 18,500 ¥6,654 ..........................Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation ................................................................................................ 2,000 1,200 1,200 ¥800 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 27,154 19,700 19,700 ¥7,454 ..........................
146 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2012 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2012 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Program oversight and administration ................................................................................................................................ 1,550 1,300 1,300 ¥250 ..........................

Total, Central Utah project completion account .................................................................................................... 28,704 21,000 21,000 ¥7,704 ..........................

Bureau of Reclamation 

San Joaquin Restoration Fund ............................................................................................................................................. .......................... 12,000 .......................... .......................... ¥12,000 

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................................................. 1,047,719 1,013,018 1,028,018 ¥19,701 ∂15,000 Total, title II, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................... 1,076,423 1,034,018 1,049,018 ¥27,405 ∂15,000 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Programs 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................................................................................................ 1,825,000 2,337,000 1,985,735 ∂160,735 ¥351,265 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥9,909 ¥69,667 ¥69,667 ¥59,758 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥5,453 .......................... .......................... ∂5,453 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,809,638 2,267,333 1,916,068 ∂106,430 ¥351,265 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ........................................................................................................................... 139,500 138,015 138,015 ¥1,485 ..........................

Defense function ......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 5,000 5,000 ∂5,000 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥397 .......................... .......................... ∂397 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 139,103 143,015 143,015 ∂3,912 ..........................

Nuclear Energy ..................................................................................................................................................................... 768,663 677,445 692,445 ¥76,218 ∂15,000 

Defense function ......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 93,000 93,000 ∂93,000 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥3,272 .......................... .......................... ∂3,272 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 765,391 770,445 785,445 ∂20,054 ∂15,000 
147 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................................................................... 534,000 420,575 460,575 ¥73,425 ∂40,000 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥187,000 .......................... .......................... ∂187,000 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥297 .......................... .......................... ∂297 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 346,703 420,575 460,575 ∂113,872 ∂40,000 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 14,909 14,909 14,909 .......................... ..........................Elk Hill School Lands Fund .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 15,580 15,580 ∂15,580 ..........................Strategic Petroleum Reserve ................................................................................................................................................ 192,704 195,609 195,609 ∂2,905 ..........................SPR Petroleum Account (rescission) .................................................................................................................................... ¥500,000 ¥291,000 .......................... ∂500,000 ∂291,000 Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ................................................................................................................................... 10,119 10,119 10,119 .......................... ..........................

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥100,000 ¥6,000 ¥6,000 ∂94,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... ¥89,881 4,119 4,119 ∂94,000 ..........................

Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 105,000 116,365 116,365 ∂11,365 ..........................Non-defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................................................................................................... 235,721 198,506 228,506 ¥7,215 ∂30,000 

Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥415 .......................... .......................... ∂415 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 235,306 198,506 228,506 ¥6,800 ∂30,000 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .................................................................................. 472,930 442,493 442,493 ¥30,437 ..........................

Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥750 .......................... .......................... ∂750 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 472,180 442,493 442,493 ¥29,687 ..........................

Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4,889,000 4,992,052 4,909,000 ∂20,000 ¥83,052 

Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥15,366 .......................... .......................... ∂15,366 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 4,873,634 4,992,052 4,909,000 ∂35,366 ¥83,052 

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ........................................................................................................................ 275,000 350,000 312,000 ∂37,000 ¥38,000 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ................................................................................................................. 38,000 38,000 38,000 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collection .................................................................................................................................................... ¥38,000 ¥38,000 ¥38,000 .......................... ..........................

Net appropriation .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program ........................................................................................... 6,000 9,000 9,000 ∂3,000 ..........................Departmental Administration ............................................................................................................................................... 237,623 230,783 220,783 ¥16,840 ¥10,000 

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................................................................................... ¥111,623 ¥108,188 ¥108,188 ∂3,435 ..........................

Net appropriation .................................................................................................................................................... 126,000 122,595 112,595 ¥13,405 ¥10,000 
148 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2012 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2012 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 42,000 43,468 43,468 ∂1,468 ..........................

Total, Energy programs ........................................................................................................................................... 8,813,687 9,815,064 9,708,747 ∂895,060 ¥106,317 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Weapons Activities ............................................................................................................................................................... 7,233,997 7,577,341 7,577,341 ∂343,344 ..........................

Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥19,877 .......................... .......................... ∂19,877 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 7,214,120 7,577,341 7,577,341 ∂363,221 ..........................

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 2,324,303 2,458,631 2,458,631 ∂134,328 ..........................

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥21,000 .......................... .......................... ∂21,000 ..........................Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥7,423 .......................... .......................... ∂7,423 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,295,880 2,458,631 2,458,631 ∂162,751 ..........................

Naval Reactors ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,080,000 1,088,635 1,088,635 ∂8,635 ..........................Office of the Administrator .................................................................................................................................................. 410,000 411,279 386,279 ¥23,721 ¥25,000 

Security (rescission) .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................................................................... 11,000,000 11,535,886 11,510,886 ∂510,886 ¥25,000 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Defense Environmental Cleanup .......................................................................................................................................... 5,023,000 5,009,001 5,063,987 ∂40,987 ∂54,986 

Sec. 309—Contractor pay freeze rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥20,050 .......................... .......................... ∂20,050 ..........................

Defense Environmental Cleanup (legislative proposal) ....................................................................................................... .......................... 463,000 .......................... .......................... ¥463,000 Other Defense Activities ....................................................................................................................................................... 823,364 735,702 735,702 ¥87,662 ..........................
149 

Total, Environmental and Other Defense Activities ............................................................................................... 5,826,314 6,207,703 5,799,689 ¥26,625 ¥408,014 Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 16,826,314 17,743,589 17,310,575 ∂484,261 ¥433,014 

Power Marketing Administrations 1

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ...................................................................................... 8,428 8,732 8,732 ∂304 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥8,428 ¥8,732 ¥8,732 ¥304 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ..................................................................................... 45,010 44,200 44,200 ¥810 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥33,118 ¥32,308 ¥32,308 ∂810 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 11,892 11,892 11,892 .......................... ..........................

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ....................................... 285,900 291,920 291,920 ∂6,020 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥189,932 ¥195,790 ¥195,790 ¥5,858 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 95,968 96,130 96,130 ∂162 ..........................

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ...................................................................................................... 4,169 5,555 5,555 ∂1,386 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥3,949 ¥5,335 ¥5,335 ¥1,386 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 220 220 220 .......................... ..........................Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 108,080 108,242 108,242 ∂162 ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 304,600 304,600 304,600 .......................... ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥304,600 ¥304,600 ¥304,600 .......................... ..........................

Net appropriation .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Total, title III, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................................... 25,748,081 27,666,895 27,127,564 ∂1,379,483 ¥539,331 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (26,639,290 ) (28,033,562 ) (27,203,231 ) (∂563,941 ) (¥830,331 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥891,209 ) (¥366,667 ) (¥75,667 ) (∂815,542 ) (∂291,000 ) 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................................................................................................... 68,263 64,850 64,850 ¥3,413 ..........................Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................................................................................................................. 29,130 29,415 27,425 ¥1,705 ¥1,990 Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................................................................................................... 11,677 11,315 11,315 ¥362 ..........................
150 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2012 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2012 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Denali Commission ............................................................................................................................................................... 10,679 10,165 10,165 ¥514 ..........................Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................................................................................................ 1,497 1,425 1,425 ¥72 ..........................Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .......................................................................................................................... 250 .......................... .......................... ¥250 ..........................Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 1,027,240 1,042,200 1,042,200 ∂14,960 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥899,726 ¥914,832 ¥914,832 ¥15,106 ..........................

Net appropriation .................................................................................................................................................... 127,514 127,368 127,368 ¥146 ..........................

Office of Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... 10,860 11,020 11,870 ∂1,010 ∂850 Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥9,774 ¥9,918 ¥9,918 ¥144 ..........................

Net appropriation .................................................................................................................................................... 1,086 1,102 1,952 ∂866 ∂850 Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................................................................................................... 128,600 128,470 129,320 ∂720 ∂850 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ............................................................................................................................... 3,400 3,400 3,400 .......................... ..........................Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects ........................................................... 1,000 3,084 1,000 .......................... ¥2,084 

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ..................................................................................................................... 254,496 252,124 248,900 ¥5,596 ¥3,224 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (254,496 ) (252,124 ) (248,900 ) (¥5,596 ) (¥3,224 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 33,805,000 33,684,037 33,432,482 ¥372,518 ¥251,555 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (32,972,209 ) (34,050,704 ) (33,508,149 ) (∂535,940 ) (¥542,555 ) Disaster relief category .................................................................................................................................. (1,724,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥1,724,000 ) ..........................Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥891,209 ) (¥366,667 ) (¥75,667 ) (∂815,542 ) (∂291,000 ) 

1 Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase 

wheeling. 
151 

Æ