73–988 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–462 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2013 

MAY 2, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 

Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5325] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2013, and for other purposes. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Introduction ................................................................................................ ........ 5 

I. Department of Defense—Civil: 2 13 

Corps of Engineers—Civil .................................................................. 2 13 

Investigations ............................................................................... 2 21 

Construction ................................................................................. 3 27 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .............................................. 4 34 

Operation and Maintenance ....................................................... 4 37 

Regulatory Program ..................................................................... 6 61 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 6 61 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .................................... 6 62 

Expenses ....................................................................................... 6 63 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 7 63 

Administrative Provision ............................................................. 7 63 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 8 64 

II. Department of the Interior: 13 65 

Central Utah Project ........................................................................... 13 65 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ........................................ 13 65 

Bureau of Reclamation: 13 66 

Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Overview ............................................ 13 66 

Water and Related Resources ..................................................... 13 67 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................... 15 73 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ............................................... 15 74 

Policy and Administration .......................................................... 16 74 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 17 75 

III. Department of Energy: 20 75 

Introduction ......................................................................................... ........ 75 

Committee Recommendations ............................................................ 20 76 

Energy Programs: 20 84 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ................................. 20 84 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................... 21 90 

Nuclear Energy ............................................................................ 21 92 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ................................. 22 94 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .................................. 23 97 

Elk Hills School Lands Fund ...................................................... 23 98 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve ....................................................... 23 98 

SPR Petroleum Account .............................................................. ........ 98 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ........................................ 24 99 

Energy Information Administration ........................................... 24 99 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 24 100 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund .......................................................................................... 25 100 

Science .......................................................................................... 25 102 

Nuclear Waste Disposal .............................................................. 26 108 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................... 26 108 

Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ...... 27 109 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program 28 110 

Departmental Administration ..................................................... 28 110 

Office of Inspector General ......................................................... 29 111 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 29 111 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 29 111 

Weapons Activities ....................................................................... 29 112 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .............................................. 30 121 

Naval Reactors ............................................................................. 31 127 

Office of the Administrator ......................................................... 31 128 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................... 32 129 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................ 32 129 

Other Defense Activities ............................................................. 33 132 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 33 134 

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 34 135 

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 35 136 

Western Area Power Administration ......................................... 37 136 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund .......... 38 137 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 39 137 

Committee Recommendation .............................................................. ........ 138 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 40 168 

IV. Independent Agencies: 47 169 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 47 169 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 48 169 

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... 48 170 

Denali Commission ............................................................................. 48 170 

Northern Border Regional Commission ............................................ 49 170 

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission ........................................ 49 171 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 49 171 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 51 174 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects ............................................................................................. 52 174 

Tennessee Valley Authority ............................................................... ........ 175 

V. General Provisions ................................................................................ 54 176 

House of Representatives Report Requirements ..................................... ........ 176 

Additional Views ........................................................................................ ........ 204 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

2013. The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 

2012, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 

for fiscal year 2013. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 001 here HR462.001
5 

INTRODUCTION 

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2013 totals $32,097,500,000, $87,500,000 more than the 

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2012 and $964,955,000 below 

the President’s budget request. Total security funding is 

$11,275,000,000, $275,000,000 more than the amount appropriated 

in fiscal year 2012 and $260,886,000 below the budget request. 

Total non-security funding is $20,822,500,000, $187,500,000 below 

the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2012 and $704,069,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee notes that significant unobligated balances rescinded in fiscal year 2012 are unavailable in fiscal year 2013, 

making annual comparisons difficult. Adjusting for rescissions, the 

bill provides a non-emergency program level of $32,278,667,000 for 

fiscal year 2013, $622,542,000 below the amount appropriated in 

fiscal year 2012 and $1,150,455,000 below the budget request. 

Title I of the bill provides $4,814,193,000 for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $187,807,000 below fiscal year 2012 (excluding disaster relief funding) and $83,193,000 

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

$1,000,000,000, $136,600,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$152,000,000 above the budget request. 

Title II provides $987,518,000 for the Department of the Interior 

and the Bureau of Reclamation, $88,905,000 below fiscal year 2012 

and $46,500,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends $966,518,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, $81,201,000 

below fiscal year 2012 and $46,500,000 below the budget request 

for accounts traditionally within the Bureau of Reclamation. The 

Committee recommends $21,000,000 for the Central Utah Project, 

$7,704,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget request. 

Title III provides $26,093,078,000 for the Department of Energy, 

$344,997,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $1,573,817,000 below the 

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

NNSA Administrator, is $11,275,000,000, $275,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2012 and $260,886,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommends $4,801,431,000 for the Office of 

Science; $1,381,293,000 for renewable energy and energy efficiency 

programs; $765,391,000 for nuclear energy programs; $554,000,000 

for fossil energy research and development; and $200,000,000 for 

the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy. 

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

$5,544,077,000, $166,359,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$105,923,000 below the budget request. 

Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided at 

the requested levels. Title IV provides $261,293,000 for several Independent Agencies, $6,797,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $9,169,000 above the budget 

request. Net funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

$127,028,000, $486,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $340,000 below 

the budget request. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS

The origins of the Department of Energy are in the Manhattan 

Project and the development of the first atomic bomb, and the 

Committee considers the Department’s national defense programs, 

run by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), to be 

of critical importance. A key tenet of United States nuclear security 

policy is the civilian control of these most destructive of weapons. 

The NNSA, as an entity separate from the Department of Defense, 

is the embodiment of this tenet. The recommendation is strongly 

supportive of the President’s proposals to increase investments in 

the NNSA through the following national defense accounts: Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors. 

The recommendation continues the Committee’s strong support 

for modernization of the nuclear stockpile and its supporting infrastructure. Critical activities are still taking place in facilities built 

70 years ago during the Manhattan project as ‘‘temporary’’ structures. Each year, our weapons scientists identify new challenges 

with our existing stockpile which must be addressed to ensure our 

strategic security. The funding in this recommendation will keep 

these efforts on track, while improving the transparency and accountability of the Administration’s planning for modernization. 

At the same time, the Committee supports the Administration’s 

efforts to prohibit the spread of fissile materials overseas. While 

the United States government has made great strides working with 

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

much more is left to be done. Finally, the Committee strongly supports the strategic protection afforded by our country’s nuclear 

fleet, which is supported through the Naval Reactors account. 

Without the strategic capability enabled through the work and professionals funded by this account, our country, and our allies, 

would be facing a much more dangerous world. 

GASOLINE PRICES AND ENERGY SUPPLIES

Although the Department of Energy can do little to immediately 

address rising gasoline prices or increase domestic energy supplies, 

its research and development programs are intended to lower energy costs and improve energy security in the years to come. The 

Committee understands that attainment of these goals requires an 

‘‘all of the above’’ energy policy and, for many years, has supported 

research and development across a broad base of technologies. Unfortunately, the budget request would have us depart from an ‘‘all 

of the above’’ energy strategy by drastically cutting research and 

development into improved fossil and nuclear energy—the country’s 

two largest energy sources—in favor of large, poorly justified increases in the research and development of energy efficiency and 

renewable energy sources. 

The Committee recommends a better balance of research and development funding, seeking an increase in affordable, domestic energy. The recommendation maintains the Committee’s commitment 

to Nuclear Energy and ensures the effective use of our coal and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

natural gas resources through increased funding for Fossil Energy 

Research and Development. 

Within Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the recommendation redirects funding into the research and development 

avenues that will best address future gasoline prices. Increased 

funding for vehicle technologies will support research to improve 

gas mileage and reduce fuel bills for all Americans, while investments in biofuels, natural gas, hydrogen, and electric vehicle research will develop secure, domestic, and affordable fuel alternatives. In Fossil Energy Research and Development, the recommendation expands enhanced oil recovery research to increase 

domestic oil production, supports research to produce alternative 

fuels from domestic coal and biomass, and funds a new initiative 

to enable the safe and economical extraction of untapped domestic 

shale oil—a domestic resource whose size could rival the entire 

world’s proven oil reserves. These are not short-term fixes, but 

strategic investments in the programs that show the best promise 

for advancing prosperity and security for this country. 

In addition to investments made within the Department of Energy, the Committee continues its investments in the two largest 

providers of hydroelectric power in the United States, the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Corps facilities 

alone supply three percent of total U.S. electric capacity. The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation is the second 

largest producer of hydroelectric power in the western United 

States, generating 40 billion kilowatt hours of electricity each year 

from 58 power plants. Taken together, the facilities of the Corps 

and Reclamation supply as much electricity as solar, wind, and 

geothermal sources combined, yet the Administration’s budget request reduces funding for them each year. Fortunately, many 

power customers have stepped forward to help fill this void by providing advanced funding for some of the needed repairs and improvements at existing facilities. 

SUPPORTING AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS

The agencies and programs funded by the recommendation have 

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

Corps of Engineers has the responsibility for reducing the risk of 

flooding for much of this country’s food-producing lands and economic centers. The Corps also is responsible for keeping our federal 

waterways open for business. The Bureau of Reclamation supplies 

reliable water to approximately ten percent of this country’s population and to much of its fertile agricultural lands. The Department 

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

of new ideas, and improvements in energy supply and utilization. 

Working together, these agencies underpin the country’s economic 

competitiveness and energy security. 

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

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

commercial channels serving 41 states. The maintenance of these 

commercial waterways is directly tied to the ability of this country 

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

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

commerce valued at more than $1,729,000,000,000 in 2011 alone. 

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

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

make hard choices with limited resources, this recommendation 

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

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

infrastructure. 

The flood protection infrastructure that the Corps builds or 

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

other public infrastructure investments. In fact, Corps projects prevented damages of $28.1 billion in 2010 alone. Between 1928 and 

2010, each inflation-adjusted dollar invested in these projects prevented $7.17 in damages. Without this Corps infrastructure, properties and investments would often be flooded each year, destroying 

homes, businesses, roads, and many valuable acres of cropland. 

The Committee considers funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to be a vital, but frequently overlooked, investment into the 

economic competitiveness of our country and encourages the Administration to include a more reasonable funding level for the 

work of the Corps in its future budget requests. 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s water infrastructure is a critical 

component of the agricultural productivity of this country. These 

facilities deliver water to more than 31 million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses and to one of every five western 

farmers resulting in approximately 10 million acres of irrigated 

land that produces 60 percent of the nation’s vegetables and 25 

percent of its fruits and nuts. Without these dams and water supply facilities, American agricultural producers in the West would 

not be able to access reliable, safe water for their families and their 

businesses and many municipal and industrial users would face 

critical water shortages. 

The Department of Energy supports essential research that has 

helped keep America at the cutting edge of science and technology 

innovation. The recommendation continues a long-standing commitment by the Committee to the type of research that will improve American energy security and independence. For instance, 

fossil fuels are a key part of our energy sector, currently supplying 

83 percent of our annual energy consumption. The United States 

has the most proven reserves of fossil fuels in the world, and they 

will continue to remain America’s largest source of energy for decades to come. In addition, the petroleum, natural gas, and coal industries support more than 10 million jobs and contribute more 

than a trillion dollars to the economy each year. The recommendation for the Office of Fossil Energy will support the country’s ability 

to efficiently and safely use these existing reserves and to tap vast 

additional resources currently inaccessible for energy production. 

Unfortunately, the Department has not been as successful ensuring that intellectual property developed with U.S. taxpayer funds 

benefits those same taxpayers. All too often, foreign manufacturers 

capitalize on ideas developed at Department of Energy laboratories, 

or domestic manufacturers leave for production in foreign countries. Drawing from testimony offered by Department officials to 

the Committee this year, the Department does not seem to have a 

coherent and implementable strategy to track and improve domesVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:16 May 03, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

tic exploitation of Department-developed intellectual property. 

Without such a strategy, U.S. manufacturing will too frequently be 

forced to play ‘‘catch-up’’ with foreign competitors benefitting from 

ideas formed here in the U.S. The Committee strongly urges the 

Department to take more of a leadership role in improving U.S. 

manufacturing and domestic intellectual property retention, and includes direction to this effect in the ‘‘Department of Energy’’ section. 

PROJECT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Project and program management at the Department of Energy 

remains a core concern of this Committee. The Department continues its two decade presence on the Government Accountability 

Office’s ‘‘high-risk list’’ for project management. While the Department has made some progress in recent years to address the causes 

of these deficiencies, major construction projects, especially for the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Office of 

Environmental Management, are still facing significant cost increases. 

These concerns extend into the management of the Department’s 

research and development activities. Taxpayer funding should only 

be invested into programs with clear guidelines and expectations, 

and activities must be terminated when those expectations are not 

met—allowing funds to be continually focused on high-priority, 

high-performing activities. The Committee became aware last year 

that as much as 80 percent of some programs’ annual budget requests was already ‘‘mortgaged,’’ promised to awards or agreements 

started in prior years. This approach severely limits the Department’s ability to adjust to new opportunities and scientific breakthroughs. Further, making awards subject to future appropriations 

reflects less than a full commitment to awardees, as full payment 

of the award is contingent on the future availability of funds and 

not solely on performance of the grantee. While some steps have 

been taken to move to a more flexible and responsive management 

approach, considerably more work needs to be done. The Committee expects program managers to actively manage their portfolios, provide clear expectations for performance, and realign funding when performance objectives are not being met. The Committee 

encourages the leadership of the Department of Energy to consider 

aspects of the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy model 

for application elsewhere within the Department’s research and development portfolio. 

In order to build confidence that taxpayer investments are being 

managed responsibly and aggressively, the Committee relies on an 

accurate and detailed presentation of the Administration’s activities and priorities. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2013 budget request hampered the ability of the Committee, and the public, to 

have confidence in the Department’s programs. The Committee includes direction under ‘‘Department of Energy’’ to ensure future 

budget requests provide Congress and the public a more appropriate level of information into the billions of dollars the Department requests from taxpayers. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT INITIATIVES

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

taxpayer dollars is unacceptable. The Committee has used hearings, reviews by the Government Accountability Office, the Committee on Appropriations’ Surveys and Investigations staff, and its 

annual appropriations Act, including the accompanying report, to 

promote strong oversight of the agencies under its jurisdiction, 

with an emphasis on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 

the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy. 

In fiscal year 2012, the Committee directed six reports from the 

Army Corps of Engineers, 60 reports from the Department of Energy, and five reports from the Bureau of Reclamation on various 

oversight initiatives. These reports were meant to inform essential 

budgetary decisions for fiscal year 2013. Each agency, but particularly the Department of Energy, has failed to comply with the Committee’s direction. Of the 71 reports directed by the Committee, 

over 30 were due as of the writing of this report. Only three of 

these reports have been delivered to the Committee. Of these three, 

only one was delivered on time. 

The Committee is concerned that agencies are failing to produce 

these reports in a timely manner. These reports provide critical information that the Committee needs in order to effectively oversee 

taxpayer funds. Without them, the Committee must make substantive decisions without the full input of the executive branch. 

For example, the Committee directed the Department of Energy to 

submit a plan based on specific future-year funding levels for the 

Office of Science. The Committee also directed the Department to 

provide an in-depth status update and detailed planning information on the Department of Energy’s Hubs and its exascale computing initiative. This information is essential to inform the Committee’s funding decisions, and without it the Committee will have 

to decide how to allocate limited funding among important projects 

without fully understanding the Department’s priorities. 

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

timely financial information to the Committee calls into question 

the strategic planning functions of those agencies and within the 

Administration’s interagency process. The Committee will continue 

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

open and transparent budgeting process. The Committee expects 

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

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

The Committee is concerned with recent reports that taxpayer 

funds have been misused to support inappropriate conferences and 

activities. The Committee directs that, not later than 30 days after 

enactment of this Act, each Inspector General or senior ethics official of any entity without an inspector general funded by this Act 

shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and Senate the procedures that the appropriate 

department, agency, board or commission has in place to ensure 

compliance with all applicable Federal laws and regulations on 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

travel, conferences and employee awards programs, and shall assess the effectiveness of these procedures. 

Further, not later than 30 days after the end of fiscal year 2013, 

each Inspector General or senior ethics official of any entity without an inspector general shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate on appropriate department, 

agency, board or commission conference spending and compliance 

with laws and regulations. At a minimum, the report shall include: 

(1) the number of conferences held; (2) the amount of funds obligated and expenses by appropriation or other source of funding including budget accounts and subaccount; and (3) compliance with 

all applicable laws and regulations. 

The recommendation continues the Committee’s responsibility to 

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

summary of the major oversight efforts in the bill is provided 

below: 

Agency/Account Requirement 

All Agencies and Departments ................ Report on compliance procedures for travel, conferences, and employee award 

programs 

All Agencies and Departments ................ Report on conference spending and legal and regulatory compliance 

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

Army Corps of Engineers ......................... Report on cost-related metrics for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects 

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

Army Corps of Engineers ......................... Final spending plan for fiscal year 2013 

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

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

Army Corps of Engineers ......................... Semi-annual list of projects that may exceed 902 limits 

Army Corps of Engineers ......................... Reprogramming guidelines 

Army Corps of Engineers ......................... Guidance on review of Olmsted Locks and Dam, IL & KY 

Army Corps of Engineers ......................... Restriction on use of funds for Olmsted Locks and Dam, IL & KY 

Army Corps of Engineers ......................... Restriction on use of continuing contracts 

Army Corps of Engineers/Construction .... Guidance on addressing threats to endangered species 

Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and 

Maintenance.

Report on hazards of woody debris in Lake Chelan, WA 

Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and 

Maintenance.

Status updates for litigation on mining activities near Tom Jenkins Dam, OH 

Army Corps of Engineers/Flood Control 

and Coastal Emergencies.

Report on method for tracking emergency activities 

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

Bureau of Reclamation ............................ Report on allocation of additional funds 

Bureau of Reclamation ............................ Guidance on use of technical memorandum for buried metallic water pipe 

Bureau of Reclamation ............................ Report on Colorado River Basin power revenues 

Bureau of Reclamation ............................ Requirement for developing new plan for budget justifications 

Bureau of Reclamation ............................ Report on five year comprehensive spending plan 

Bureau of Reclamation ............................ Reprogramming guidelines 

Department of Energy .............................. Requirement for revision of budget justification documents 

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

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

Department of Energy .............................. Report on program direction 

Department of Energy .............................. Report on Department-funded centers 

Department of Energy .............................. Guidance for including centers in future budget justifications 

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

Department of Energy .............................. Report on advancing American industry using computation sciences 

Department of Energy .............................. Notification of non-competitive management and operating contracts 

Department of Energy .............................. Restriction on fellowship and scholarship programs not in budget request 

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

Department of Energy .............................. Reprogramming guidelines 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy (EERE).

Guidance on manufacturing jobs in the United States 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Guidance on budget structure changes 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Guidance on conduct of biomass activities using non-food sources 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Study regarding consumer electronics technology and manufacturing 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Guidance for working with HUD and stakeholders on housing energy standards 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

Agency/Account Requirement 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Guidance on consolidation of NREL facility operations and maintenance funding 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Guidance on return of weatherization programs to pre-ARRA operation rates 

Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability (EDER).

Guidance on test grid for energy systems cyber security 

Department of Energy/EDER .................... Requirement for prioritized list of cyber security testing capabilities 

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

Department of Energy/Fossil Energy ........ Guidance on hydraulic fracturing research and development 

Department of Energy/Fossil Energy ........ Guidance for proposal on shale oil technology program 

Department of Energy/Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.Action plan for small sites remediation 

Department of Energy/Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning.

Guidance on progress of Title X activities 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Guidance on reporting of data-intensive computing activities 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Guidance on joint work between EFRC’s and EERE 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Report on improvements to the BioEnergy Research Centers 

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

Department of Energy/NNSA .................... Statutory report on tritium and enriched uranium management 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Prohibition of funding to reduce stockpile below New START levels 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Report on prior-year spending on B61 life extension program 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Report on plutonium sustainment strategy and alternative assessment 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Separate funding line for Stockpile Assessment and Design 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Guidance on updating production plans for sustained funding for W76 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Realignment of funding for technology maturation 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Prohibition of funding for component upgrades within Stockpile Services 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Prohibition of funding for new operating lease 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Report on delays of upgrades to Building 9212 at Y-12 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Realignment of separate funding for maintenance and repair projects 

Department of Energy/Nonproliferation ... Independent review of performance measures 

Department of Energy/Nonproliferation ... Guidance on review of Second Line of Defense 

Department of Energy/Nonproliferation ... Comptroller General review of MOX facility cost estimates 

Department of Energy/Nonproliferation ... Guidance on reducing MOX operating expenses 

Department of Energy/Nonproliferation ... Guidance on future requests for Plutonium Disposition Integration 

Department of Energy/Nonproliferation ... Guidance on domestic radiological material protection 

Department of Energy/Naval Reactors .... Submission of five-year plans for OHIO-Replacement and prototype 

Department of Energy/Office of the Administrator.Guidance on Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup.Report on National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program 

Department of Energy/Bonneville Power 

Administration Fund.

Notification requirement for final plan for high voltage line 

Department of Energy/Bonneville Power 

Administration Fund.

Report on direction received from the Secretary of Energy 

Department of Energy/Southeastern 

Power Administration Fund.

Report on direction received from the Secretary of Energy 

Department of Energy/Southwestern 

Power Administration Fund.

Report on direction received from the Secretary of Energy 

Department of Energy/Western Area 

Power Administration Fund.

Report on direction received from the Secretary of Energy 

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

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............. Requirements for funding Yucca Mountain license application 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............. Guidance on use of general expenses funds 

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

Tennessee Valley Authority ...................... Inspector General audit and inspection reports 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act funds 

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

This program is responsible for activities in support of coastal and 

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

water supply and disaster preparedness and response. The Corps 

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

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

the Civil Works program. 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW

The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers totals $4,731,000,000, a reduction of 

$271,000,000, or 5.4 percent, from fiscal year 2012. As in previous 

years, the largest dollar reduction is in the Construction account 

($223 million), although the Investigations account sees the largest 

percentage reduction (18 percent) from fiscal year 2012. The only 

significant increase requested is for the Regulatory account ($12 

million or 6 percent). 

While the Committee acknowledges that the Administration’s request shows an increased focus on navigation improvements over 

the fiscal year 2012 budget request, it is still a reduction from the 

fiscal year 2012 Act. Additionally, this focus seems to come at the 

expense of investments in flood risk management efforts. Investments in both of these mission areas not only provide short-term 

economic benefits by directly creating jobs, but also provide the 

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

the case of flood risk management, investment can prevent or reduce the costs of recovery from flood events. It would have been 

preferable for increased funding for one mission to have been a result of increased overall funding for the Corps, rather than at the 

expense of the other missions. Unfortunately, the Committee has 

limited funds with which to supplement the budget request for the 

Corps, but has allocated these additional funds to mitigate the cut 

to flood risk management efforts in the budget request. 

Budget Criteria.—According to the Administration, the Corps 

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

funding was allocated based on continuing the ‘‘highest performing 

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

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

of a nationally- or regionally-significant aquatic ecosystem. Operation and Maintenance funds were allocated based on a mix of facVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

tors including tonnage movements, risk and consequences assessment, and visitation at recreation sites. It is entirely unclear, 

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

development of the budget. 

Most concerning is the fact that these metrics were not applied 

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

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

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

The Committee notes the inclusion of a new Construction account criterion that makes any coastal navigation project eligible 

for funding if the project would support jobs or economic activity. 

The description provided claims this is consistent with guidance 

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

activity to be supported by a project when determining allocation 

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

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

Project Completions and Initiations.—The budget request for the 

Investigations account includes funding to complete a total of 13 

studies and 3 preconstruction engineering and design phases. 

Funding is requested for 6 new studies. The budget request for the 

Construction account includes funding to complete 8 projects and 

to initiate 3 new projects. Funding for one new program in the Operation and Maintenance account also is requested. 

DEEP-DRAFT NAVIGATION

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

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

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

fleets, however, and the scheduled opening of an expanded Panama 

Canal in 2014 has prompted a move towards larger ships requiring 

deeper drafts. The United States must address these evolving infrastructure needs if the nation is to remain competitive in international markets and to continue advancing economic development 

and job creation domestically. 

Investigations and construction of port projects, including the 

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

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

authorities. The operation and maintenance of these projects are 

federal responsibilities and are funded as reimbursements from the 

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

tax on the value of imported and domestic cargo. Expenditures 

from the trust fund are subject to annual appropriations and are 

available only for certain authorized purposes. The balance in the 

HMTF by the beginning of fiscal year 2013 is estimated to be more 

than $7 billion. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

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

request. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee provides a total of 

$1,000,000,000 for HMTF-related activities, $136,600,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $152,000,000 above the budget request. While 

not equal to total anticipated annual receipts, this increase is substantial, especially in light of the decrease in overall funding for 

the Corps of Engineers, and should allow the Corps to make 

progress on the backlog of dredging needs. The Committee continues its long-standing policy of making funds from the HMTF 

available only for HMTF-authorized activities. 

INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM

The inland waterways system consists of approximately 12,000 

miles of commercially navigable channels and 239 lock chambers to 

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

waterways system carries more than 600 million tons of cargo, valued at nearly $70 billion, each year. This freight includes a significant portion of the nation’s grain exports, domestic petroleum and 

petroleum products, and coal used in electricity generation. Much 

of the physical infrastructure of the system is aging, however, and 

in need of improvements. For example, commercial navigation locks 

typically have a design life of 50 years, yet nearly 60 percent of 

these locks in the United States are more than 60 years old. 

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

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

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

costs are funded 100 percent from the General Treasury. 

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

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

The Committee continues to support the only prudent budgetary 

option under these circumstances—that of limiting investment to 

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

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

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

of aging infrastructure increases. The Committee continues to encourage the Administration to work with industry and the appropriate committees of the Congress to develop an equitable solution 

to this problem as soon as possible. 

Olmsted Locks and Dam.—The budget request concentrates most 

of the anticipated annual revenues to one project, the Olmsted 

Locks and Dam project on the Ohio River. Construction of two 

locks was substantially completed in 2005, and construction of the 

dam has been ongoing since 2004. Following completion of the dam, 

two existing locks and dams will be demolished. 

The budget request also proposes to increase the authorized cost 

of the project to $2,918,000,000 from $775,000,000 as first authorized in 1988. The proposed authorization level represents an increase of $872,000,000 from the previous estimate presented to the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

Congress in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. No information to 

support this request was provided to the Committee by the Administration until April 13, 2012. The Committee, as steward of federal 

taxpayer dollars, cannot possibly concur with a cost increase of this 

magnitude without information to support the increase and sufficient time to review such information. Therefore, the bill does not 

include an increase in authorized cost as proposed in the budget request. 

The Committee is concerned with the significant cost increases 

and schedule delays associated with this project. Particularly in the 

absence of legislation to address the level of funds available in the 

IWTF, this project will monopolize funding from the IWTF for several years longer than anticipated, thereby delaying work on other 

projects critical to the continued operation of the nation’s inland 

waterways system. The Committee expects better project oversight 

and management from the Corps of Engineers. 

The Committee has received recommendations from some interested parties to suspend funding for the Olmsted Locks and Dam 

project while the Corps reviews alternatives for completing the 

project, including whether to switch to a more traditional construction method for the navigable pass portion of the dam. A review is 

certainly appropriate, and the Corps has informed the Committee 

that one is underway. This review can be accomplished concurrent 

with continued construction, however, as it would not save time or 

money to attempt to switch construction methods for the tainter 

gates currently under construction. The funding requested for fiscal 

year 2013 can be used under either outcome of the Corps’ review. 

Therefore, the Committee provides funding for the Olmsted Locks 

and Dam project in fiscal year 2013. Language in the bill restricts 

a portion of the funds provided, however, until such time as the 

Corps completes its review, develops a plan for the expeditious 

completion of the project construction, and communicates the findings of the review and the plan to the appropriate congressional 

committees. 

Given the magnitude of the cost increase, the Committee directs 

the Corps to enter into an agreement with the Department of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office or a similarly independent and qualified group to review the construction alternative analysis to confirm the assumptions, construction alternatives, and costs for completing the project. 

FLOODPLAIN MAPPING AND LEVEE CERTIFICATIONS

Communities from around the country have expressed concern 

and frustration with the process by which the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is updating floodplain maps and the 

treatment of levees within that process. The Committee continues 

to support a concerted effort by the Corps to provide proactive information on levees within its jurisdiction and to be an active partner with communities around the nation as they seek to certify 

their levees by producing an inventory of all levees, both federal 

and non-federal, within the next year. The Committee will continue 

to scrutinize the floodplain mapping process and the role the Corps 

plays in that process. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

CREDIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BY NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS

The Committee has heard concerns from a number of communities regarding the recently updated policy on credits for work performed by non-federal sponsors, particularly as it relates to flood 

control projects. Specifically, these communities are concerned that 

ER 1165–2–208, issued in February 2012, restricts credit for construction to work performed only after release of the draft feasibility report. This policy could act as a disincentive for non-federal 

interests to construct urgently needed flood control projects. 

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

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

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

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

where the existing levee alignment protects existing infrastructure. 

The Secretary is directed to review existing policy to determine 

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

project conditions rather than a one-size-fits-all point in time. The 

Secretary shall report the results of this review to the Committee 

not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act. If a decision is 

made to update ER 1165–2–208, the Secretary shall provide the 

Committee with a copy of the updated finalized guidance. If a decision is made not to update ER 1165–2–208, the Secretary shall detail the reasoning for such decision. 

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS

Current policy requires the Corps, during the planning process 

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

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

contrast to the policy for flood risk reduction and navigation 

projects. To be recommended in a Chief’s Report, the alternative selected in a project in these categories must maximize national economic development and must meet a minimum benefit-to-cost ratio. 

Similarly, in the budget development process, AER projects are 

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

The Committee directs the Corps to report not later than 120 

days after enactment of this Act on potential cost-related measures 

or metrics suitable for use in evaluating AER projects for authorization and funding. The Corps shall not limit consideration of 

measures or metrics based on current policy, but rather include in 

the report any changes to policy or statute that would be necessary 

to implement use of these measures or metrics. 

FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

Historically, the Committee has encouraged the Administration 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

Energy and Water Development jurisdiction, particularly the 

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

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

projects have been initiated, the Administration will request responsible annual funding levels for them through completion. 

The executive branch has traditionally been unwilling to project 

five-year horizons for projects it has not previously supported 

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

circumstances where there is no likelihood of additional investment, the Congress has supported additional funding resources for 

the nation’s water resource infrastructure. The uncertainty caused 

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

would be beneficial for the Congress, the Administration, and 

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

The Committee continues to welcome a dialogue to reach a mutually-agreeable way to comprehensively plan for all initiated 

projects. 

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

Corps to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the optimum 

timeline and funding requirements to complete each of the ongoing 

projects which received construction funding in any of fiscal years 

2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012, but are not slated by the Administration 

for construction funding in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

This report also should include an accounting of the federal and 

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

be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

and the Senate not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act. 

NEW STARTS

The Administration proposes a combined reduction of $260,000,000 from Investigations, Construction, and Operation and 

Maintenance from fiscal year 2012 and a reduction of $620,000,000 

(excluding emergency funding) from fiscal year 2010, the last time 

the Committee provided funding for any new starts. While the 

Committee strongly supports additional investment in water resource projects, the funding limitations set forth by the Administration present the Committee with a difficult choice between starting 

new authorized projects in the Corps and only funding those 

projects that are ongoing in an effort to complete them. The lack 

of a five-year comprehensive plan forces the Committee to make 

this choice based on very limited information regarding the completion schedule of ongoing projects and how any new starts would affect that schedule. Faced with this difficult choice and incomplete 

information, the Committee has determined that prioritizing ongoing projects is the only responsible course of action and, therefore, 

recommends no new starts in any Corps account in fiscal year 

2013. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING

To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2013 is 

consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the movement 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

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

a legislative provision outlining the circumstances under which the 

Corps of Engineers may reprogram funds. 

FORMAT OF FUNDING PRIORITIES

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

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

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

definition encompasses project-level funding not requested by the 

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

more transparent way to highlight programmatic priorities without 

abandoning congressional oversight responsibilities. The fiscal year 

2012 Act included a modification to the format used in previous 

years, and that format is continued for fiscal year 2013. 

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

studies, projects, and activities within each account requested by 

the President along with the Committee-recommended funding 

level. To advance its programmatic priorities, the Committee has 

included additional funding for certain categories of projects. The 

Corps is directed to report to the Committee, not later than 60 days 

after enactment of this Act, on its final spending plan for fiscal 

year 2013. 

The Committee expects considerable improvement in the quality 

and detail of information provided in fiscal year 2013 regarding the 

allocation of these additional funds. The original spending plan 

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

Committee received a bare minimum of justification information. 

Unfortunately, much of this information was more a description of 

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

funding decisions were made. 

To assist the Corps in providing the requested information, the 

Committee directs the Corps to develop ratings systems for use in 

evaluating projects for allocation of the additional funding provided 

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

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

projects to be funded. Each study or project that has received funding, other than through a reprogramming, in the past three fiscal 

years shall be evaluated under the applicable ratings system. The 

Corps retains complete control over the methodology of these ratings systems, but may not exclude studies or projects from evaluation under these ratings systems for being ‘‘inconsistent with Administration policy.’’ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

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

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

and any discrepancies between those studies and projects with the 

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

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

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

the activity is inconsistent with Administration policy. 

PROJECT COST AUTHORIZATION LIMITS

Water resource projects of the Corps of Engineers typically have 

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

Act (WRDA) of 1986 provides the Corps with the flexibility to increase the statutory cost limit under certain circumstances, resulting in what is often called the 902 limit. To proceed with a project 

that exceeds its 902 limit, the statutory authorization must be 

amended. The House rule defining a congressional earmark generally includes any such project modification unless requested by 

the President. This situation makes it incumbent upon the executive branch to be more mindful of monitoring project 902 limits and 

the timeliness of any necessary legislative proposals. The Corps can 

no longer simply assume that the Congress will fix these problems 

without an official request. The most appropriate vehicle for these 

project modifications would be an authorization bill, such as a 

WRDA bill. 

The Committee is aware of several projects that have reached or 

will soon reach their 902 limits. In some cases, the Corps may not 

be able to initiate construction as planned. In one case, a project 

may be halted at 90 percent complete. This type of easily avoidable 

delay cannot continue to occur. 

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

appropriate committees of the Congress, a plan for the oversight 

and management of 902 limit project modifications. This plan 

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

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

Congress. The Committee further directs the Corps to submit to 

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

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

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

The list should be submitted semi-annually, including concurrently 

with the budget request. 

In the absence of executive branch action to address this problem 

for fiscal year 2013, the bill includes a temporary measure to allow 

the Corps to move forward qualified projects in a responsible manner. Such qualified projects are those that have reached or will 

reach the 902 limit in fiscal year 2013, including those commencing 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

construction activities. The Committee understands this temporary 

waiver will not address the 902 limit for the Olmsted Locks and 

Dam project, which will not be reached until fiscal year 2014. 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 APPROPRIATIONS LEVELS

Unless otherwise noted, all references to fiscal year 2012 appropriations for the Corps of Engineers in the report text shall be exclusive of the amounts provided in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112–77). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $4,814,193,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers, $187,807,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$83,193,000 above the request. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2012 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2013 budget request, and the Committee-recommended levels is provided below: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Account FY 2012 enacted FY 2013 request Committee 

recommended 

Investigations .............................................................................................. $125,000 $102,000 $102,000 

Construction ................................................................................................ 1,694,000 1,471,000 1,477,284 

Mississippi River and tributaries ............................................................... 252,000 234,000 224,000 

Operation and maintenance ....................................................................... 2,412,000 2,398,000 2,507,409 

Regulatory program .................................................................................... 193,000 205,000 190,000 

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

Flood control and coastal emergencies ...................................................... 27,000 30,000 27,000 

Expenses ..................................................................................................... 185,000 182,000 177,500 

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

Total, Corps of Engineers—Civil .............................................. 5,002,000 4,731,000 4,814,193 

INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $125,000,000 

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

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 102,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥23,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need for, the 

engineering and economic feasibility of, and the environmental and 

social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource 

problems; preconstruction engineering and design; data collection; 

interagency coordination; and research. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $102,000,000, 

$23,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here HR462.044
23 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here HR462.045
24 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here HR462.046
25 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here HR462.047
26 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The Committee notes 

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

the Construction account, as in previous years. 

Walla Walla River Watershed, Oregon and Washington.—After 

submission of the budget request, the Corps informed the Committee that no funds for this study could be used this fiscal year 

as the non-federal sponsor has requested to pursue the ‘‘no-action’’ 

plan. Accordingly, the Committee does not provide funding for this 

study. 

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 studies initiated 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 includes additional funding 

for ongoing navigation and flood risk reduction studies. While this 

additional funding is shown in the feasibility column, the Corps 

should use 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. A 

study shall be eligible for this funding if it has received funding, 

other than through a reprogramming, in at least one of the previous three fiscal years. In no case shall funds be used to initiate 

new studies within this account. Further, none of these funds may 

be used to alter any existing cost-share requirements. 

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

to allocating these additional funds. The Corps shall consider developing a ratings system that gives priority to completing or accelerating ongoing studies 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. Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the 

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

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

including a list and description of each discrepancy between the results of the study evaluations and the allocations made. No funds 

shall be obligated for any project under this program which has not 

been justified in such a report. 

Planning Program Modernization.—The Committee is aware that 

the Corps has undertaken a planning modernization effort, including a National Planning Pilot Program, to improve the quality and 

timeliness of Corps studies. The Committee encourages the Corps 

to continue to focus on mechanisms to streamline project studies 

and increase the cost-effectiveness of federal planning investments. 

Flood Risk Reduction Assistance to State and Local Governments.—The Committee includes the requested amounts for the 

Flood Plain Management Services and the National Flood Risk 

Management Program. Through these programs, the Corps provides technical assistance to communities looking to better manage 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

flood risk. The Committee encourages the Corps to explore additional ways of providing recommendations and guidance on reducing flood risk to state and local governments, particularly those 

communities with aging infrastructure. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $1,694,000,000 

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

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,477,284,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥216,716,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +6,284,000 

This appropriation funds construction, major rehabilitation, and 

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

reduction, or aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. 

Portions of this account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,477,284,000, 

$216,716,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $6,284,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 23 here HR462.048
29 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 24 here HR462.049
30 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 25 here HR462.050
31 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 04 here HR462.051
32 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 05 here HR462.052
33 

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

request includes funding for the Savannah Harbor Expansion, 

Georgia project in the Investigations account. As in previous fiscal 

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

Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.—The 

Committee maintains total funding for this program at the fiscal 

year 2012 enacted level. Funding for the Lower Yellowstone Intake 

project is provided at the budget request. 

Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon and 

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

concluded that Caspian Terns nesting at Goose Island in Potholes 

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

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

endangered upper Columbia River Steelhead smolts. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to expedite any appropriate 

actions, including lethal removal, to address the significant threat 

of these predatory birds to endangered salmon species. 

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

authorized construction projects that would cost tens of billions of 

dollars to complete, yet the Administration continues to request a 

mere fraction of the funding necessary to complete those projects. 

The Committee includes additional funds to continue ongoing 

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

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

this funding if it has received funding, other than through a reprogramming, in at least one of the previous three fiscal years. 

None of these funds may be used to initiate new projects, for 

projects in the Continuing Authorities Program, or to alter any existing cost-share requirements. 

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

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

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

of jobs created directly by the funded activity; ability to obligate the 

funds allocated within the fiscal year, including consideration of 

the ability of the non-federal sponsor to provide any required costshare; ability to complete the project, separable element, or project 

phase with the funds allocated; for flood risk reduction projects, 

population, economic activity, or public infrastructure at risk, as 

appropriate; and for navigation projects, the number of jobs or level 

of economic activity to be supported by completion of the project, 

separable element, or project phase. 

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

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

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

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

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

project evaluations and the allocations made. No funds shall be obVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

ligated for any project under this program which has not been justified in such a report. 

Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).—The Committee continues to support all sections of the Continuing Authorities Program. This program provides a useful tool for the Corps to undertake small localized projects without the lengthy study and authorization process typical of most larger Corps projects. Funding for 

fiscal year 2013, however, is provided for only those sections of the 

program for which the Corps has indicated capability beyond estimated carryover funds. Total CAP funding is provided at the budget request of $24,062,000, although some funding is shifted between sections. The management of the program should continue 

consistent with direction provided in fiscal year 2012. 

Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Projects.—Some coastal storm 

damage reduction projects provide for periodic nourishment. These 

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

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

authorized time period, and the non-federal sponsors have indicated interest in extending the authorizations. To date, the Corps 

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

unique elements of these projects, similarities to projects with 

other authorized purposes, and any advisable legislative changes in 

order to provide a clear policy on this issue. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $252,000,000 

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

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 224,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥28,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥10,000,000 

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation 

and maintenance activities associated with projects to reduce flood 

damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial valley below Cape 

Girardeau, Missouri. 

The Committee understands there is still a large amount of work 

to be done to fully recover from the record flood event that affected 

the Mississippi River and Tributaries System in 2011. For the first 

time in history, the Corps had to activate all floodways in the Mississippi River and Tributaries System which included literally 

blowing up sections of the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway to 

keep water from overtopping levees. The Committee expects the 

Army Corps of Engineers to use the emergency funding provided 

in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112–77) to 

complete the Mississippi River and Tributaries flood control infrastructure repairs by December 31, 2012, to ensure the individuals, 

farms, and businesses in the Mississippi River valley are provided 

the same level of flood protection as before the 2011 flood event. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $224,000,000, 

$28,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $10,000,000 below the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 30 here HR462.053
36 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 31 here HR462.054
37 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $2,412,000,000 

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

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 2,507,409,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +95,409,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +109,409,000 

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

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

collection of domestic, waterborne commerce statistics. Portions of 

this account are financed through the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,507,409,000, $95,409,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $109,409,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 33 here HR462.055
39 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 34 here HR462.056
40 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 35 here HR462.057
41 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 36 here HR462.058
42 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 37 here HR462.059
43 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 38 here HR462.060
44 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 39 here HR462.061
45 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 40 here HR462.062
46 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 41 here HR462.063
47 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 42 here HR462.064
48 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 43 here HR462.065
49 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 44 here HR462.066
50 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 45 here HR462.067
51 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 46 here HR462.068
52 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 47 here HR462.069
53 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 48 here HR462.070
54 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 49 here HR462.071
55 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 50 here HR462.072
56 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 51 here HR462.073
57 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 52 here HR462.074
58 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 53 here HR462.075
59 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 54 here HR462.076
60 

McNary Shoreline Management Plan.—The Committee directs 

the Corps of Engineers to continue to work with local residents to 

address their concerns as the agency implements the McNary 

Shoreline Management Plan. 

Lake Chelan, Washington.—The Committee is aware of concerns 

raised by local residents regarding the safety hazards posed by 

woody debris placed in Lake Chelan, Washington, to recreational 

users of the lake. Given that the placement of this woody debris 

is identified by the Seattle District of the Corps as a mitigation option for private dock owners, the Committee directs the Corps to 

report to the House Appropriations Committee not later than 60 

days after enactment of this Act on efforts to address safety hazards posed by woody debris in Lake Chelan, the liability of the 

Corps and private dock owners should person or property be injured or destroyed by the woody debris, and whether woody debris 

should continue to be an acceptable option offered for mitigation at 

this particular location. 

Tom Jenkins Dam, Ohio.—The Committee is aware of ongoing 

litigation regarding mining activities permitted by the State of 

Ohio and the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration in the 

region of Tom Jenkins Dam. The Corps is directed to work towards 

expeditious resolution of this situation. The Corps shall provide 

periodic updates to the Committee on the status of this litigation, 

as well as the status of any operational changes to the flood control 

project being considered. 

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 can cause substantial economic losses. The 

Committee believes that investing in operation, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation of infrastructure today will save taxpayers money in 

the future. 

The Committee includes additional funds to continue ongoing 

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

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

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

initiate new projects or programs or to alter any existing cost-share 

requirements. 

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

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

ability to complete ongoing work maintaining authorized depths 

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

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

the work will promote job growth or international competitiveness; 

number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; ability to obVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

ligate the funds allocated within the fiscal year; ability to complete 

the project, separable element, or project phase within the funds allocated; and the risk of imminent failure or closure of the facility. 

The Committee is concerned that the Administration’s criteria 

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

the criteria used for determining which navigation projects are 

funded in order to develop a reasonable and equitable allocation 

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

particular those with national defense or public health and safety 

importance. Further, the Committee directs the Corps to allocate 

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

remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $193,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 205,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 190,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥15,000,000 

This appropriation provides funds to administer laws pertaining 

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

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

to review and process permit applications, ensure compliance on 

permitted sites, protect important aquatic resources, and support 

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

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $190,000,000, 

$3,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $15,000,000 below the budget request. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $109,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 104,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 104,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

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

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

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

FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee intended 

to transfer only the responsibility for administration and execution 

of cleanup activities at FUSRAP sites where the Department had 

not completed cleanup. The Committee did not transfer to the 

Corps ownership of and accountability for real property interests, 

which remain with the Department. The Committee expects the 

Department to continue to provide its institutional knowledge and 

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

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $104,000,000, $5,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the request. The 

Committee continues to support the prioritization of sites, especially those that are nearing completion. Within the funds provided 

in accordance with the budget request, the Corps is directed to 

complete the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study of the 

former Sylvania nuclear fuel site at Hicksville, New York, and, as 

appropriate, to proceed expeditiously to a Record of Decision and 

initiation of any necessary remediation in accordance with the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $27,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 30,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 27,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥3,000,000 

This appropriation funds planning, training, and other measures 

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

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

and storm damage reduction projects. 

The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for this account, the 

same as fiscal year 2012 and $3,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee notes that the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 

112–25) provides for the appropriation of funds for disaster relief 

only in areas designated as major disasters pursuant to the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 

U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). The Corps can relatively easily determine the 

location of many emergency activities funded under this account, 

and therefore these activities may be funded using amounts designated for disaster relief. The Corps has not, however, traditionally tracked many other more programmatic activities to specific locations. In order to minimize the potential impact to its base funding, the Corps is directed to develop a method for tracking emergency-related activities to specific locations to the greatest extent 

possible. The Corps shall report to the Committee not later than 

90 days after enactment of this Act on progress in this regard, including a list of any activities the Corps determines cannot be 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

tracked to specific locations and an estimate of funding used for 

these activities over the past 10 years. 

The Committee recognizes that a small city, less than 50,000 in 

population, are at a disadvantage in comparison with their large 

urban counterparts under the Army Corps of Engineers utilization 

of high cost-benefit ratios in its budgeting process. The Committee 

directs the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the impact of flood 

risk on a small city’s economic viability in determining budget priorities. 

EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $185,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 182,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 177,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥7,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥4,500,000 

This appropriation funds the executive direction and management of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, 

and certain research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $177,500,000, 

$7,500,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $4,500,000 below the budget 

request. Of the funds provided, up to $9,752,748 may be allocated 

to the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. 

The Corps is directed to be ready to report to the appropriate 

committees of Congress not later than 90 days after enactment of 

this Act on an implementation plan for aligning Corps policy regarding the possession of firearms at water resources development 

projects covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations, with the comparable policies of the National Park 

Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Public Law 

111–24. This plan shall detail the actions necessary to address any 

statutory, regulatory, budgetary, or other policy issues related to 

such an alignment of policy. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 5,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works oversees the 

Civil Works budget and policy, whereas the Corps’ executive direction and management of the Civil Works program are funded from 

the Expenses account. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000, the 

same as fiscal year 2012 and the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for the 

purchase or hire of passenger motor vehicles. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

except in certain circumstances. 

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

Act to carry out any contract that commits funds beyond the 

amounts appropriated for that program, project, or activity. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting the award of continuing contracts for any project for which funds are derived from 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund until such time as a long-term 

mechanism to enhance revenues sufficient to meet the cost-sharing 

requirements is enacted. 

The bill continues a provision requiring the submission of any 

Chief’s report to the appropriate committees of the Congress. 

The bill continues a provision allowing the Corps to implement 

actions to prevent aquatic nuisance species from dispersing into the 

Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic connection between the 

Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin. The Committee does 

not consider hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes Basin from 

the Mississippi River Basin to be an emergency measure authorized by this Act. The issue should be fully studied by the Corps of 

Engineers and considered by the appropriate congressional committees. The Committee remains concerned by the threat of aquatic 

nuisance species to the nation’s water bodies and recognizes the 

critical role of the Army Corps of Engineers in preventing, controlling, and managing the threat of Asian carp. The Committee notes 

that the Corps cooperates with other federal, state, and local government agencies through the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating 

Committee to execute a comprehensive strategy to deal with Asian 

carp. 

The bill continues a provision authorizing the transfer of funds 

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

to Corps of Engineers projects. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting travel by the Chicago 

District of the Corps of Engineers except in certain circumstances. 

The bill contains a provision regarding obligation of funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL & KY 

project. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting the use of certain funds 

prior to the submission of required reports. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds from being used 

to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction under 

the Clean Water Act. 

The bill contains a provision allowing the possession of firearms 

at water resources development projects under certain circumstances. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $28,704,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 21,000,000* 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 21,000,000* 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥7,704,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

* The budget requests this activity as part of the Bureau of Reclamation. For purposes of comparison, the 

budget request is shown here. 

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

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

Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act 

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

recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in 

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

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

prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes to repeal the statutory prohibition on delegation of responsibility and put oversight of 

the Central Utah Project under the Bureau of Reclamation. The 

Committee rejects this proposal. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2013 to carry out 

the Central Utah Project is $21,000,000, $7,704,000 below fiscal 

year 2012 and the same as the budget request. Within the funds 

recommended, the following amounts are provided for the Central 

Utah Water Conservation District by activity, as outlined in the 

budget request: 

Utah Lake Drainage Basin Delivery System ................................... $7,300,000 

Water Conservation Measures .......................................................... 10,000,000 

Total, Central Utah Water Conservation District .................... 17,300,000 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount of $1,200,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 

Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 

and Conservation Commission. These funds, as proposed in the 

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

recreation mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title 

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

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

Title III—Fish and Wildlife, Recreation and Mitigation, and Conservation .......................................................................................... $1,000,000 

Section 201(a)(1) Mitigation Measures ............................................. 200,000 

Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission ............................................................................................. 1,200,000 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

wildlife conservation programs, the Committee provides $1,200,000, 

the same as the budget request. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is to 

manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of 

the American public. Since its establishment by the Reclamation 

Act of 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has developed water supply 

facilities that have contributed to sustained economic growth and 

an enhanced quality of life in the western states. Lands and communities served by Reclamation projects have been developed to 

meet agricultural, tribal, urban, and industrial needs. Reclamation 

continues to develop authorized facilities to store and convey new 

water supplies and is the largest supplier and manager of water in 

the 17 western states. Reclamation maintains 476 dams and 348 

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

As Reclamation’s large impoundments and appurtenant facilities 

reach their design life, the projected cost of operating, maintaining, 

and rehabilitating Reclamation infrastructure continues to grow, 

yet Reclamation has not budgeted funding sufficient to implement 

a comprehensive program to reduce its maintenance backlog. At 

the same time, Reclamation is increasingly relied upon to provide 

water supply to federally-recognized Indian tribes through water 

settlements, rural communities through its Title I Rural Water 

Program, and municipalities through its Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. Balancing these competing priorities with 

constrained funding will be challenging and requires active participation and leadership on the part of Reclamation and its technical 

staff. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $1,034,018,000. After accounting for proposed changes in 

account structure, the request for activities funded under the Bureau of Reclamation in recent years is $1,013,018,000. The Committee recommendation totals $966,518,000, $81,201,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $46,500,000 below the budget request. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2012 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2013 budget request, and the Committee recommendation is provided below. 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Account FY 2012 

enacted 

FY 2013 

request 

Committee 

recommended 

Water and Related Resources .......................................................................... $895,000 $818,635 $833,635

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ........................................................... 53,068 39,883 39,883 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................................... 39,651 36,000 36,000 

Policy and Administration ................................................................................. 60,000 60,000 57,000 

Indian Water Rights Settlements ..................................................................... .................... 46,500 ..........................

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund ................................................................ .................... 12,000 ..........................

Central Utah Project Completion ...................................................................... .................... 21,000 ..........................

Total, Bureau of Reclamation .................................................................. 1,047,719 1,034,018 966,518 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $895,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 818,635,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 833,635,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥61,365,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +15,000,000 

The Water and Related Resources account supports the development, construction, management, and restoration of water and related natural resources in the 17 western states. The account includes funds for operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest overall levels of benefits, to protect public safety, 

and to conduct studies on ways to improve the use of water and 

related natural resources. 

For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends $833,635,000, 

$61,365,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $15,000,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation includes in this 

account certain Indian Water Rights Settlements proposed for 

funding under a separate account in the President’s budget request. No funding is included for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, which the President’s request also proposed as a new 

separate account. Adjusted for this change in account structure, the 

recommendation is $43,500,000 below the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 62 HR462.077
69 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 63 HR462.078
70 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 64 HR462.079
71 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 65 HR462.080
72 

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.—The budget request again 

proposes an account separate from the Water and Related Resources account for discretionary funding of San Joaquin River Restoration activities. As in past years, the Committee includes this 

activity within the Water and Related Resources account, although 

no funding is provided. 

Klamath Basin.—The budget request includes funding for a new 

item titled ‘‘Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.’’ The Committee changes this item to ‘‘Klamath Basin’’ to reflect that authorizing legislation has not been enacted and the Secretary of the Interior has not signed the Agreement. The funding provided may be 

used only for those activities proposed in the budget request that 

are (1) authorized and (2) required or of value independent of any 

future action on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee includes 

additional funds for facilities operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation work. Priority in allocating these funds should be to advance 

and complete ongoing work, improve water supply reliability, improve water deliveries, enhance regional or local economic development, promote job growth, or for critical backlog maintenance and 

rehabilitation activities, as applicable. Not later than 30 days after 

enactment of this Act, Reclamation shall provide to the Committee 

a report delineating how these funds are to be distributed; a summary of work to be accomplished within each allocation, including 

in which phase the work is to be accomplished; and an explanation 

of the criteria and rankings used to justify each allocation. 

Indian Water Rights Settlements.—The budget request again proposes a new appropriations account for five Indian water rights settlements. As in fiscal year 2012, however, the Committee includes 

funding for these settlements in the Water and Related Resources 

account. 

Reclamationwide Aging Infrastructure.—The budget request proposes a new line item to fund various projects requiring Extraordinary Operations and Maintenance work. The budget justification 

documents describe this program as a continuation of the additional funding for facilities operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation included in the fiscal year 2012 Act. The fundamental difference, however, is that the funding provided in fiscal year 2012 

was provided to supplement an inadequate budget request, not to 

obscure project-specific allocation decisions. If each project in the 

fiscal year 2013 budget request is properly budgeted, then this line 

item for general funds is unnecessary. The reprogramming guidelines included in this Act provide sufficient flexibility to address 

any unexpected or emergency situations. Therefore, the Committee 

provides no funding for this program. 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe.—As was made clear in the fiscal 

year 2012 Act, concerns persist regarding implementation of Reclamation’s Technical Memorandum 8140–CC–2004–1 (‘‘Corrosion 

Considerations for Buried Metallic Water Pipe’’). Specifically, the 

Committee is concerned that Reclamation’s level of reliance on this 

memorandum may be holding different materials to different 

standards of reliability and increasing project costs unnecessarily. 

Therefore, as previously directed, Reclamation should not use the 

memorandum as the sole basis to deny funding or approval of a 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

project or to disqualify any material from use in highly corrosive 

soils. The Committee clarifies that an undefined, lengthy exceptions policy is not sufficient to avoid the perception of use of the 

memorandum as the ‘‘sole basis’’ for decisions. 

Further, the Committee is concerned that Reclamation is not taking all appropriate steps to avoid bias or the appearance of predetermined outcomes in the assembly and analysis of data on pipeline reliability required in fiscal year 2012, especially in light of 

persistent concerns regarding this issue. Reclamation is directed to 

engage a neutral third party to collect and analyze this data. The 

Committee reiterates the fiscal year 2012 direction that this effort 

include an analysis of the economics, cost-effectiveness, and lifecycle costs associated with the various materials under evaluation. 

Colorado River Storage Project Power Revenues.—The Committee 

has heard concerns about Reclamation’s intent to continue the use 

of Colorado River Storage Project power revenues as ‘‘base funding’’ 

for activities related to compliance with the Endangered Species 

Act in the upper Colorado River Basin even though this provision 

of Public Law 106–392 has expired. Reclamation has stated it may 

rely on existing authority to continue using power revenues for this 

purpose, but has not detailed the source(s) of this existing authority. The Committee directs Reclamation to report to the appropriate congressional committees not later than 15 days after enactment of this Act on the specific statutory provisions that provide 

this authority and an explanation of the limits of this authority. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $53,068,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 39,883,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 39,883,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥13,185,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

This fund was established to carry out the provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and to provide funding for 

habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish 

and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley area of 

California. Resources are derived from donations, revenues from 

voluntary water transfers and tiered water pricing, and Friant Division surcharges. The account also is financed through additional 

mitigation and restoration payments collected on an annual basis 

from project beneficiaries. 

For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends $39,883,000, 

$13,185,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for 

programs and activities according to the Administration’s request. 

The Committee notes that the decrease for this account in the 

budget request and recommendation is based on a three-year rolling average of collections, in accordance with the authorizing statute. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
74 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $39,651,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 36,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 36,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥3,651,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The California Bay-Delta Restoration account funds the federal 

share of water supply and reliability improvements, ecosystem improvements, and other activities being developed for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds by a state 

and federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in this 

program was initially authorized in the California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in 1996. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends $36,000,000, $3,651,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for 

programs and activities according to the Administration’s request. 

The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau 

of Reclamation, is encouraged to expedite completion of the planning and feasibility studies and environmental impact statements 

associated with the water storage projects identified in section 

103(d)(1) of the Water Supply Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108–361). 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $60,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 60,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 57,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥3,000,000 

The Policy and Administration account provides for the executive 

direction and management of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s office in Washington, D.C.; the Technical Service Center in Denver, Colorado; and in five regional offices. The Denver and regional offices charge individual projects or 

activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative 

and technical costs. These charges are covered under other appropriations. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends 

$57,000,000, $3,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the budget request. 

The Committee has concerns about the limited information regarding activities included in the annual budget request that is 

provided to the Committee. Particularly as new, large, and costly 

projects and programs are proposed for initiation, Reclamation 

must provide detailed analysis and explanation of how these commitments will be met in the future and the impacts to ongoing 

projects and programs. Without an understanding of out-year funding needs of activities in the budget request, for example, it is difficult for the Committee to evaluate the budget proposal and the 

prioritization of actions it represents. Reclamation is directed to 

work with the Committee to develop a mutually acceptable scope 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
75 

of information to be included in, or concurrent with, the standard 

budget justification materials provided to the Congress. 

The Committee previously has directed the Administration to 

produce a five-year plan that serves the public interest by providing visibility into Reclamation’s future plans and spending. To 

date, Reclamation has failed to provide that plan to the Committee. 

The Committee once again directs the Administration to fulfill the 

Committee’s request to provide an adequate and useful five-year 

plan. 

The Committee expects that the five-year plan will include the 

following: (1) a funding scenario which reflects the Administration’s 

expenditure ceilings, including inflation for the out-years; (2) a list 

of active projects, as defined by a project receiving funding in the 

previous three years, for which funding is not proposed in the plan; 

(3) a full accounting of all rural water, Tribal water settlement, 

and Title XVI projects that are currently authorized, the total authorization, the balance to complete, and total appropriations to 

date; (4) an estimate of the total cost of extraordinary and emergency operation and maintenance to address the backlog of project 

needs due to the aging of Reclamation infrastructure; and, (5) an 

explanation of the methodology used in determining the project allocations, together with the direction provided to field offices in the 

preparation of the five-year plan. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for the 

purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

The bill continues a provision regarding the circumstances in 

which the Bureau of Reclamation may reprogram funds. 

The bill continues a provision regarding the San Luis Unit and 

Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

INTRODUCTION 

Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of 

Energy programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear Energy, 

Fossil Energy Research and Development, Naval Petroleum and 

Oil Shale Reserves, the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve, the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, the 

Energy Information Administration, Non-Defense Environmental 

Management, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, Innovative Technology 

Loan Guarantee Program, Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loans Program, Departmental Administration, Office of the 

Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator), Defense EnvironVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

mental Cleanup, Other Defense Activities, the Power Marketing 

Administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Energy has requested a total budget of 

$27,666,895,000, including rescissions totaling $366,667,000, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2013 to 

fund programs in its five primary mission areas: science, energy, 

environment, nuclear nonproliferation, and national security. The 

Department of Energy budget request is $1,918,814,000 above fiscal year 2012 and includes significant increases to renewable energy programs and national defense mission areas. Substantial reductions are proposed to the program levels for Nuclear Energy 

and Fossil Energy Research and Development. 

The Committee recognizes that the Department has made some 

difficult decisions among its priorities in its budget request. However, the Committee’s recommendation makes changes to address 

the perennial threat of higher gasoline prices, better support American competitiveness, and strengthen national security. 

The Committee notes that significant unobligated balances rescinded in fiscal year 2012 are unavailable in fiscal year 2013, 

making annual comparisons difficult. Excluding rescissions, the 

total funding recommended for the Department of Energy is 

$26,274,245,000, $365,045,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$1,759,317,000 below the budget request. Including rescissions, the 

total funding recommended for the Department of Energy is 

$26,093,078,000, $344,997,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$1,573,817,000 below the budget request. 

MAJOR COMMITTEE CONCERNS

Last year, the Committee expressed its concern over the lack of 

strategic direction for a national energy policy, and urged the Department to take a more proactive role in developing such a policy. 

When the President spoke of an ‘‘all of the above’’ energy policy in 

the 2012 State of the Union address, the Committee was encouraged to hear the President adopt an approach the Committee has 

supported for years. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2013 budget request does not adopt a true ‘‘all of the above’’ energy strategy, and 

instead seems more ideological than practical. For instance, the request makes substantial cuts to Fossil Energy and Nuclear Energy, 

this country’s most important energy sources, in order to increase 

funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. As attractive 

as renewable energy may be, it will only supply a mere fraction of 

this country’s energy over the next 50 years, and taxpayer dollars 

should be invested across the spectrum of all technologies. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution states ‘‘No 

money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law’’. The Committee has reminded the Department of this constitutional provision during budget hearings 

because of the repeated disregard for congressional direction in the 

execution of appropriations law. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
77 

The Committee continues the Department’s reprogramming authority in statute to ensure that the Department carries out its 

programs consistent with congressional direction. This reprogramming authority is established at the program, project, or activity 

level, whichever is the most specific included in the text or table 

detailing the Committee’s recommendation for the Department of 

Energy’s various accounts. The Committee also prohibits new 

starts not funded by the Congress and includes other direction to 

improve public oversight of the Department’s actions. 

FINANCIAL REPORTING

The Committee notes that the Department has made some improvements over the last year to regularize reporting of financial 

balances to the Committee. While these efforts have improved the 

institutional control of resources within the Department, and the 

Committee’s confidence in the Department’s financial structures, 

the Department’s budget justifications for fiscal year 2013 were insufficient. 

In several major accounts, the budget request materials lack details and were presented at such a high level of explanation as to 

cloud any real understanding of the activities that were proposed. 

Tables were removed from program descriptions, requiring the 

reader to sort through pages of text to derive details that were previously prominently displayed. The Committee appreciates attempts to make these documents more concise, but preserving 

transparency is essential. 

In addition, while some programs provided a more logical description of activities within the text, others failed to make substantive improvements that would have justified revising the format so extensively. Within the NNSA volume, the budget justifications did not even provide tables at the level of the reprogramming 

controls, yet the actual text was 44 pages longer than last year’s 

volume, after accounting for the removal of the funding details for 

the sites. 

In some cases, the information provided was entirely inadequate 

for budgeting purposes. The budget request justification documents 

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) are of particular concern to the Committee. In prior years, EERE budget justifications specified funding levels within each program according 

to their technology areas and activities. This year’s budget request 

divides each program into four categories based on Technology 

Readiness Levels (TRL): Innovation, Emerging Technologies, Systems Integration, and Market Barriers. It also strips out nearly all 

other project and activity funding details provided in prior-year volumes and includes only qualitative descriptions of proposed activities. While a TRL analysis could add an interesting and useful 

analysis for how activities support the Department’s strategic 

goals, it is not a suitable replacement for a clear description of the 

actual technology areas and activities to be funded. 

For example, the budget documents briefly discuss goals for Enhanced Geothermal Field Sites but fail to mention that funding for 

these new sites accounts for $30,000,000 of the geothermal program’s proposed $65,000,000 budget. While the Committee has access to these details through subsequent inquiries, the research 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
78 

community, industry and the general public do not have the same 

level of access and depend heavily on the transparency of the budget documents as prepared by the Department. The lack of funding 

detail weakens the Department’s justification for taxpayer-funded 

activities and lessens the Committee’s confidence that careful planning and budgeting at the activity level is conducted prior to release of the budget request. The Committee directs the Department 

to provide in its budget justifications no less detail than the funding levels provided for projects, programs and activities in the fiscal 

year 2012 budget request. Further, the Department is directed to 

revert EERE’s budget request justification structure to that used in 

the fiscal year 2012 request, with updates as necessary to reflect 

any real and proposed changes to programs and activities. The Department may include a TRL analysis as supplemental information 

for each EERE program. 

In addition to the problems caused by the revised formatting, the 

Department continues to request changes to the congressional 

budget structure. While the Committee has supported changes to 

the budget structure to improve transparency and provide flexibility in executing funding, these structure change proposals may 

cause misperceptions, and make it difficult to understand programmatic trends using an ‘‘apples to apples’’ comparison. For instance, this year’s request attempted to shift funding for Idaho 

Sitewide Safeguards and Security from Other Defense Activities to 

Nuclear Energy. Because of this shift, the Department’s budget request appears to provide level funding for Nuclear Energy, while 

actually reducing funding to research and development activities by 

twelve percent. The Committee directs the Department to consult 

with the Committee before implementing any changes to its budget 

request structure. 

In addition, the Committee directs the Department to continue 

to provide monthly Financial Balances Report to the Committee. 

The reports should provide, for each program at the congressional 

control level as specified in the table in this report detailing the 

Committee’s recommendation for the Department’s various accounts, the following balances: total available (prior and current 

year); unobligated; unobligated but committed; and obligated and 

uncosted. To the extent possible, data should be provided both in 

summary form and by the fiscal year the funding was appropriated. Emergency funding, including any unspent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act balances, should be displayed separately within the Report. This direction shall apply to future fiscal 

years unless countermanded by the Committee. 

The Committee remains concerned over the lack of transparency 

in the Department’s Program Direction accounts and has specified 

Program Direction funding in the bill for the relevant accounts. 

The Committee directs the Department to provide a Program Direction Report to the Committee, no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. The report should provide for each program 

and field activity for the two previous fiscal years budgeted and expended amounts for salaries and benefits, travel, support services, 

and other related expenses and other relevant categories. This report should include Program Direction balances in summary form 

and by the fiscal year. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
79 

MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR SPENT FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE

The Committee believes that the Administration’s refusal to 

honor the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 regarding Yucca Mountain has significantly set back this country’s 

nuclear spent fuel and waste management strategy. By unilaterally 

halting the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository, the Administration is unable to take responsibility for this nation’s spent fuel and high level waste. As a result, the Department’s fiscal year 2011 Financial Report shows the estimated liability taxpayers are now faced with to be more than 

$19,000,000,000, nearly $4,000,000,000 more than a year ago. This 

liability will likely only grow as the full consequences of the Administration’s Yucca Mountain policy become clear. In addition, 

high-level defense waste in sites across the country now have no 

disposition pathway, presenting the likelihood that the federal government will have to pay penalties to the states as deadlines for 

removal are missed. Finally, the credibility of the federal government has been further eroded by the Administration’s actions to 

halt the program and its refusal to request a legislative alternative 

to current law. 

The Committee notes that although the Administration’s Blue 

Ribbon Commission recommendations have not been considered in 

whole or in part by Congress, the Administration requests funding 

for several of these recommendations in an attempt to shift attention from its Yucca Mountain policy. Several proposed activities 

would only be necessary as a consequence of the Administration’s 

Yucca Mountain policy, such as efforts to increase the nuclear 

waste confidence rule past its current 60 years. The Committee rejects all such proposals. Additionally, the bill makes clear that any 

activities funded from the Nuclear Waste Fund must be in support 

of Yucca Mountain. 

The recommendation includes $25,000,000 for Nuclear Waste 

Disposal to support the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository, including $5,000,000 to support local communities 

who have formally consented to host it. The Committee includes 

this support in recognition that Nye County, the county which encompasses the Yucca Mountain area, has given its formal consent 

to host Yucca Mountain. The Committee notes that geological repositories will be needed in addition to Yucca Mountain. If the Congress provides the authority for such repositories, as well as for a 

consensus-based siting process, the Committee will consider support for such activities at that time. In the meantime, the bill contains a prohibition on using funds to close the Yucca Mountain license application or to take actions which would irrevocably remove Yucca Mountain as an option for a repository. 

PROLIFERATION OF CENTERS

In the past several years, the Department has established a variety of new research centers, or persistent, location-based grantees 

that receive funding across a number of years and which often require out-year commitments subject to appropriations. Examples 

include Energy Frontier Research Centers, Energy Innovation 

Hubs, BioEnergy Research Centers, Clean Energy Application CenVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
80 

ters, and Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities. The Committee, 

in conjunction with the Department, has deliberated extensively 

and openly over proposals for many of these centers, as seen in the 

process for establishing new Energy Innovation Hubs. The Committee continues to support the ongoing review of all existing research centers and expects frequent and thorough updates as the 

Department considers their relative effectiveness and potential renewal or termination in future years. 

While many of these centers have been proposed openly and established with congressional concurrence, a number have been established or renewed over the years without mention in budget requests, such as Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities and the 

U.S. China Clean Energy Research Center. Further, many centers 

have been funded perennially and lack a concrete goal after which 

they would be terminated. This practice has led to the proliferation 

of centers across many Departmental programs consuming program 

budgets and preventing prioritization of funds towards other higher-priority activities. 

For example, the Advanced Manufacturing Program within Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy currently funds more than 

forty centers of a variety of sizes, ages, and effectiveness levels, 

only a portion of which are mentioned in the budget request. These 

centers vary in how well they support the program’s new manufacturing mission. Further, the Department’s financial commitments 

to these centers and to other prior-year awards consume more than 

$100,000,000 of that program’s budget, making it difficult to target 

fiscal year 2013 activities towards the most pressing manufacturing priorities. 

Addressing this problem requires a higher degree of transparency, evaluation, and prioritization to ensure that only highlyeffective centers closely aligned to program missions are funded. 

The Department is directed to submit to the Committee, not later 

than February 10, 2013, a comprehensive list of all centers funded 

in fiscal year 2013, including the date of establishment, funding 

level in fiscal year 2013, total funding received to date, purpose 

and milestones, and expected termination date. Further, future 

budget request justifications should explicitly include all centers 

and their current and proposed funding levels, expected out-year 

commitments, and detail on their programmatic and technical 

goals. 

PROJECT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The Committee has been frequently critical of the Department 

project and program management practices. Its inability to control 

cost and scope on major construction projects, among other issues, 

has kept the Department on the Government Accountability Office’s ‘‘high risk list’’ for more than two decades. The recommendation includes direction, most notably within the Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Weapons Activities, and Defense Environmental Cleanup accounts, to assist the Department in improving 

the transparency and accountability of the funds entrusted to it by 

the taxpayer. 

Further, the Committee remains concerned about the Department’s management of its loan guarantee programs. While the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
81 

Committee has not provided additional loan guarantee authority or 

subsidy, the Department has a substantial portfolio that must be 

managed as well as significant unobligated authority to enter into 

new loan guarantees. Given the challenges the program has experienced over the last several years, it is incumbent upon the Department to aggressively monitor the health of each of its awardees and 

take strong measures when necessary to protect taxpayer investments. In addition, the Department must improve its transparency 

with Congress and the public regarding the program. The perceptions of unnecessary risk from which the program has suffered are 

only heightened by a general lack of understanding regarding the 

decisions the Department has made to date. 

Finally, the Committee has taken steps in recent years to curb 

the Department’s announcements of new funding opportunities 

without congressional support or funding. This recommendation 

continues this initiative, driven by past Department practices 

which have led to false expectations in the marketplace. The Department’s public declarations have the potential to shape private 

sector investments and even move markets, and the Committee 

strongly urges the Department to more closely tie its proclamations 

with its ability to fulfill them. 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

While the Department of Energy is this country’s premier supporter of energy-related research and development, the Committee 

is concerned with the Department’s apparent lack of focus on keeping this intellectual property here at home. The Department’s research and development efforts yield several thousand patents and 

licenses each year, and taxpayers expect their support to result in 

commercialized technologies that benefit both American consumers 

and American industry. This expectation is not met when intellectual property that was developed with public funding is commercialized only by foreign manufacturers. The Committee believes 

that intellectual property policies offer substantial opportunities to 

encourage domestic manufacturing without obstructing commercial 

efficiency, eroding the value of intellectual property, or undermining free trade. The technology transfer efforts of the Department should support domestic manufacturing wherever possible 

and the Department must take proactive steps to ensure taxpayerfunded research and development result in domestic jobs and revenues. 

In recent years, a number of companies using or selling technologies that were developed with the Department’s support have 

relocated their manufacturing efforts overseas. Despite the Department’s many technological breakthroughs, the U.S. increasingly imports more renewable energy products than it exports. The majority of components installed in American renewable energy systems 

are manufactured overseas. The current composition of global manufacturing means that much of the research and development proposed in the Department’s budget request is likely to be produced 

overseas. Yet, the request includes no recommendations or initiatives to improve intellectual property retention here at home. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to report not later than 120 

days after enactment of this Act on what authorities are available 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
82 

to control intellectual property, including the Bayh-Dole Act, that 

may help the retention of domestic manufacturing. The report 

should describe how the Department uses these authorities to ensure that its scientific discoveries yield commercial technologies 

that are manufactured domestically. In addition, the Secretary 

should include in the report specific recommendations for improving domestic intellectual property transfer and retention. 

American manufacturing can also benefit by using the Department’s world-leading computational assets. The Committee supports the use of computational sciences in the Department’s applied 

research and development programs to advance American energy 

and manufacturing innovations, and directs the Department to 

submit a report outlining the Department’s strategy to this end. 

CONTRACT COMPETITION

In fiscal year 2004, the Congress mandated the competition of all 

management and operating contracts, some of which had not been 

competed in over 50 years. The Committee continues to believe 

that competition of contracts is in the national interest where there 

is expressed interest on the part of private companies, non-profits, 

or universities. 

The accompanying bill does not mandate competition; however, 

the Department is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations at least 60 days before the award and 10 days prior to 

announcement of a non-competitive management and operating 

contract. In such a case, the Secretary shall submit a report notifying the Committees of such an award and setting forth, in specificity, the substantive reasons competition is not in the national interest. This direction shall be followed in future fiscal years unless 

countermanded by the Committee. 

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and scholarship programs in fiscal year 2013 unless they were explicitly included in the fiscal year 2013 congressional budget request justification documents and are not excluded in this recommendation. 

Any new or ongoing programs that the Department wishes to fund 

in fiscal year 2014 must be detailed in the fiscal year 2014 budget 

request documents. This direction shall be followed in future fiscal 

years unless countermanded by the Committee. 

Further, the Department is directed to report to the Committee, 

not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, a comprehensive 

listing of educational activities at the Department funded with fiscal year 2012 appropriations, including all fellowships, scholarships, workforce training programs, and primary and secondary 

school activities. For each activity, the report shall include the fiscal year 2012 funding level, purpose, out-year mortgages, and Department account and program within which the activity resides. 

This report shall be submitted in future fiscal years unless countermanded by the Committee. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
83 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to inform the Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution and 

funding is required during the fiscal year. As in the fiscal year 

2012 Act, the Department’s reprogramming requirements are detailed in statute. To assist the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided for programs and activities funded in 

the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation. The recommendation includes a general provision providing internal reprogramming authority to the Department, as long as no program, 

project, or activity is increased or decreased by more than 

$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, compared to the levels 

in the text or table detailing the Committee’s recommendations for 

the Department’s various accounts. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project to another project or a change of $2,000,000 or 10 

percent, whichever is less, in the scope of an approved project. 

Criteria for Reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made 

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of 

the project or activity until the next appropriations year would result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or priority. A 

reprogramming may also be considered if the Department can show 

that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding for 

an activity. Mere convenience or preference should not be factors 

for consideration. A reprogramming may not be employed to initiate new programs, or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by the Congress in 

the Act or report. 

Reporting and Approval Procedures.— In recognition of the security missions of the Department, the legislative guidelines allow 

the Secretary and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration jointly to waive the reprogramming restriction 

by certifying to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

and Senate that it is in the nation’s security interest to do so. The 

Department shall not deviate from the levels for activities specified 

in the report which are below the level of the detail table, except 

through the regular notification procedures of the Committee. No 

funds may be added to programs for which funding has been denied. Any reallocation of new or prior-year budget authority or 

prior-year de-obligations, or any request to implement a reorganization which includes moving previous appropriations between 

appropriations accounts must be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy 

programs in fiscal year 2013 are described in the following sections. 

A detailed funding table is included at the end of this title. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
84 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $1,809,638,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 2,267,333,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,381,293,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥428,345,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥886,040,000 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs include research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, as well as federal energy assistance programs. Renewable 

energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities include biomass and biorefinery systems, geothermal technology, hydrogen and fuel cell technology, water power, solar energy, and wind energy technologies. Energy efficiency activities include reducing the energy consumption of vehicle, building and industrial technologies, and the Federal Energy Management Program. Federal energy assistance programs include weatherization 

assistance, state energy programs, and tribal energy activities. The Committee recommends a total of $1,381,293,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $428,345,000 below fiscal year 

2012 and $886,040,000 below the budget request. Taking into account rescissions of $15,362,000 in fiscal year 2012 and the rescission of $69,667,000 of prior-year balances in the recommendation, 

the bill provides $374,040,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$886,040,000 below the budget request. 

Priorities.—Within limited resources in fiscal year 2013, the 

Committee focuses funding on programs that address future high 

gas prices and support American manufacturing, two of the Committee’s highest priorities. While funding for the overall EERE program is reduced by 24 percent from fiscal year 2012, the activities 

focusing on these two priorities are funded at approximately the 

fiscal year 2012 level. Through careful prioritization and difficult 

choices, the recommendation increases the portion of the EERE 

portfolio focusing on these critical priorities from roughly half in 

fiscal year 2012 to nearly three-quarters in fiscal year 2013. 

The Vehicle Technologies, Biomass and Biorefinery Systems, and 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies programs fund activities that 

can reduce American exposure to future high oil prices. Research 

into cutting-edge technologies that will increase the gas mileage of 

gasoline and diesel fuel vehicles—the vast majority of today’s 

fleet—will allow Americans to spend less on fuel over the same distance. Research into next-generation automotive and fuel technologies that power vehicles with domestic energy sources such as 

natural gas, electricity, biofuels, and hydrogen can likewise dramatically lower the impact of future high gas prices on Americans. 

The activities funded within EERE, together with the activities 

funded elsewhere in the bill to increase domestic oil and gas production, form a two-pronged approach to protecting Americans from 

future increases of petroleum-based fuel prices. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
85 

The Advanced Manufacturing Program, formerly Industrial Technologies, will fund activities targeted at helping American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace. Energy costs are a 

major contributor to manufacturing costs, and technology innovations that steeply reduce energy consumption in industrial and 

manufacturing processes can give American manufacturers competitive advantages in the global marketplace. Further, the Committee funds activities throughout all EERE research and development programs targeted at lowering the manufacturing cost of 

emerging energy technologies. 

The Committee is concerned that, historically, technology innovations developed through EERE research and development programs 

ultimately lead to manufacturing of new or cheaper products overseas. The Committee cautions the Department against this pitfall 

and charges EERE with targeting the Advanced Manufacturing activities, as well as research and development across EERE, to ultimately create manufacturing jobs in the United States. 

Comparison to Budget Request.—Unlike in previous years, the 

Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2013 budget request does not 

specify funding levels for most projects and activities below the program level within Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Therefore, for the purposes of comparison to requested levels and fiscal 

year 2012, the recommendations for projects and activities within 

this account use figures provided by the Department in supplementary materials after transmittal of the budget request. For its 

fiscal year 2014 budget request, as directed under ‘‘Financial Reporting’’ above, the Department is to return to the same level of detail provided in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH, 

DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT

The Committee recommends $1,364,400,000 for energy efficiency 

and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment programs, $332,600,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$777,600,000 below the budget request. 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.—The Hydrogen and Fuel 

Cell Technologies program advances technologies that use fuel cells 

and hydrogen energy carriers for both transportation and stationary purposes. The Committee recognizes the breakthrough research, cost reductions, and increased efficiencies and durability of 

fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems achieved by this program 

that have accelerated the technologies’ transition to market. Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies continue to be one of few possible 

ways to reduce Americans’ exposure to future high gas prices, and 

the Committee continues to support research in this area. The 

Committee recommends $82,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 

Technologies, $22,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $2,000,000 

above the budget request. 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.—Along with electric, 

fuel-cell, and natural gas vehicles, biofuels grown from non-food 

crops or algae are one of the few ways by which the nation can 

lower its dependence on imported oil and reduce the impact of future high gas prices on American families and businesses. The Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D program develops and demVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 

onstrates technologies to convert biomass crops to fuels, chemicals, 

heat, and power. The Committee recommends $203,000,000 for Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D, $3,000,000 above fiscal year 

2012 and $67,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Department is directed to continue conducting only research, 

development, and demonstration activities advancing technologies 

that can produce fuels and electricity from biomass and crops that 

could not otherwise be used as food. 

The budget request proposed funding and legislative language for 

a joint initiative with the Navy and the Department of Agriculture 

to develop commercial diesel and jet biofuels production capacity 

for defense purposes. The Department has not adequately justified 

why the Department of Energy should fund this Defense initiative, 

and whether the proposed investments can successfully lower costs 

to competitive levels in several years or will only serve to sink costs 

into a product that is too immature to compete without federal support. The recommendation includes no funding for the proposed initiative and does not include the requested legislative language. The recommendation includes $15,000,000 for research and development of biofuels from algae feedstocks, $15,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $14,280,000 below the request. The recommendation includes no funds for cook stoves activities, $4,829,000 below 

fiscal year 2012 and $2,910,000 below the request. 

Solar Energy.—The Solar Energy program funds applied research, development, and demonstration of both photovoltaic and 

concentrating solar technologies to reduce the cost of solar power 

to economically competitive levels. The Committee recommends 

$155,000,000 for Solar Energy, $135,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 

and $155,000,000 below the budget request. 

Keeping American manufacturing competitive continues to be a 

major priority for the Committee across all technology areas, and 

solar manufacturing initiatives are prioritized within this program. 

From within available funds, the recommendation includes no less 

than $65,000,000 for Innovations in Manufacturing, $19,404,000 

below the fiscal year 2012 and $44,710,000 below the budget request. The recommendation also includes no less than $20,000,000 

for PV Cell Development and Supply Chain activities, $7,983,000 

below fiscal year 2012 and $3,041,000 below the budget request. 

Wind Energy.—The Wind Energy program supports research and 

development aiming to improve the reliability and decrease the cost 

of wind power. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for Wind 

Energy, $23,593,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $25,000,000 below 

the budget request. 

The Committee continues to support wind activities with large 

generation potential that rely on technology innovations that would 

not be developed by the private sector alone. To this end, the Committee supports an emphasis on offshore wind technologies significantly more advanced and in deeper water than those being considered currently by the private sector. The Committee recommends 

$35,000,000 for offshore wind activities, to include $15,000,000 for 

research and development of innovative offshore wind technologies, 

and $20,000,000 for offshore wind demonstration projects that are 

significantly more technologically advanced than commercial ventures currently in development. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
87 

Geothermal Technologies.—Ground heat is a potentially large 

source of domestic energy that could be broadly tapped for power 

generation, heating, and cooling. The Committee recommends 

$30,000,000 for geothermal technology, $8,000,000 below fiscal year 

2012 and $35,000,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes no funds for the proposed 

$30,000,000 Enhanced Geothermal Systems Field Sites. The Department is encouraged in future budget requests to refine its justification for these field sites and to include details on out-year 

commitments. A realistic budget proposal that includes field sites 

should not assume a significantly increased overall appropriation 

for Geothermal Technologies. 

As noted by the Committee last year, the United States Geological Survey has identified more than 120 gigawatts of potential domestic energy from low-temperature geothermal sources. The Committee directs the Department to continue supporting a comprehensive program that will help the nation tap these vast resources, 

and to consider the full authorized spectrum of geothermal technologies in order to maximize the use of domestic geothermal energy. 

Water Power.—The Committee recommends $45,000,000, 

$14,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $25,000,000 above the 

budget request, to include $25,000,000 for marine and hydrokinetic 

research, development, and demonstration, and $20,000,000 for 

conventional hydropower. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Vehicle Technologies program invests 

in activities to lower the impact of high gas prices on the nation’s 

drivers through technological advancements that increase the fuel 

efficiency of vehicles and the spectrum of transportation fuels. The 

Committee recommends $335,000,000 for Vehicle Technologies, 

$5,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $85,000,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes $60,000,000 for Advanced Combustion Engine Research and Development, $1,973,000 above fiscal 

year 2012 and $4,739,000 above the budget request, to increase gas 

mileage by improving the combustion engine technologies used in 

the vast majority of the nation’s current vehicles. As the Department focuses more efforts on developing new alternative fuels for 

automotive, power production, and industrial applications, research 

is needed to improve the efficiency and performance of alternative 

fuels rather than focusing solely on increased production. Better 

understanding of alternative fuel properties, combustion, and fluid 

dynamics can assist producers and engine manufacturers in achieving the clean utilization of alternative fuels. The Committee encourages the Department to support research that targets multidisciplinary efforts involving researchers, fuel producers, and end 

users to help develop a sustainable fuel industry from domestic 

sources. 

The Committee recommends $49,000,000 for Materials Technology, $8,170,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $525,000 above the 

budget request, to improve efficiency and gas mileage of all vehicle 

types through the development of lightweight materials and advanced propulsion system materials. Within available funds, the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
88 

recommendation provides $4,000,000 for Lightweight Materials 

Simulation and Design. The recommendation includes $171,131,000 for Batteries and 

Electric Drive Technology, $6,193,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$88,681,000 below the budget request, to advance technologies that 

will enable the next generation of vehicles powered by domestically-produced electricity. The recommendation also includes 

$26,500,000 for Vehicle Technologies Deployment, $1,376,000 below 

fiscal year 2012 and the same as the request. 

In its fiscal year 2012 report, the Committee emphasized the importance of increasing the efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty 

trucks, as well as its concern regarding the Department’s plans to 

terminate or delay commitments under the SuperTruck program. 

The Committee notes that the Department met its commitments to 

prior awards within this program during fiscal year 2012. 

Building Technologies.—Buildings consume more than 40 percent 

of the nation’s energy, and the Building Technologies program 

seeks to save energy by advancing technologies in building systems 

and in appliances and devices within them. The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for Building Technologies, $95,000,000 

below fiscal year 2012 and $185,000,000 below the request. The recommendation includes $24,238,000, the same as the request, for the fourth year of the Energy Efficient Building Systems 

Design Energy Innovation Hub, and $6,000,000 for small-scale 

combined heat and power systems with applications in residential 

and small commercial settings. The Committee recommends 

$24,238,000 for solid state lighting research and development, the 

same as the request, to include $12,000,000 for research to lower 

manufacturing costs. The recommendation includes no funding for 

the Better Buildings Challenge. The Department is encouraged to 

investigate opportunities for technological improvements that can 

increase the energy efficiency of cooking appliances in commercial 

settings. 

The Department has been engaged in a rulemaking process for 

several years to define energy usage standards for direct heating 

equipment under authorities granted by the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended. The Committee recognizes 

that the treatment of gas hearth and log products under this rule 

has been controversial and is the subject of ongoing litigation. The 

Committee notes that the Congress has not updated the statutes 

relevant to this issue for 34 years and encourages the Department 

to work with the relevant authorizing committees to ensure the legislation and its implementation comport with congressional intent. 

The Committee directs the Department to work with its partner 

agencies, industry, and relevant university programs to complete a 

study, not later than 8 months after enactment, of the potential 

benefits of a research and development program to improve the 

manufacturing of consumer electronics. The research and development program should include, but not be limited to: the potential 

for manufacturing improvements, cost-effective ‘‘smart electronics’’ 

technologies that could further save consumers money and reduce 

the energy consumption of consumer electronics, and an evaluation 

of research and development approaches for increasing energy efficiency of consumer electronics. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
89 

The Committee is aware that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 assigned the Department the role to develop energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, a responsibility which had previously been assumed by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Committee directs 

the Department to work closely with HUD, industry, and tenant 

groups, including through the Manufactured Housing Consensus 

Committee, to ensure that any proposed standards take equally 

into account the up-front cost of housing as well as lifecycle operating costs. 

Advanced Manufacturing.—The Advanced Manufacturing program, formerly the Industrial Technologies program, invests in research and development to improve the competitiveness of American manufacturing by increasing the energy efficiency of manufacturing processes across a variety of industries. Energy usage is a 

large contributor to the cost of manufacturing, and reductions to 

energy expenditures can significantly lower manufacturing costs. 

The Committee recommends $150,000,000, $34,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2012 and $140,000,000 below the budget request. The recommendation includes $32,300,000 for Next Generation 

Materials, $577,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $20,052,000 below 

the request. Within Next Generation Materials, the recommendation includes $20,000,000 for the second year of funding for the 

Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub, the same as the budget 

request. The constrained supply of critical materials continues to 

be a serious concern for advanced energy, vehicle, and defense technologies. The Department is encouraged to address the domestic 

rare earth supply chain through the Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub and other means, including the investigation of costneutral opportunities such as recycling programs. The recommendation includes $102,700,000 for Next Generation 

Manufacturing Processes, $40,615,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$96,048,000 below the request. The Committee recommends 

$40,000,000 for the Innovative Manufacturing Initiative, 

$40,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $60,000,000 below the 

budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation includes not less than $4,205,000 for improvements in production in 

the steel industry, and $19,000,000 for combined heat and power 

activities relevant to industrial applications and energy savings in 

manufacturing processes. 

The recommendation includes $15,000,000 for Industrial Technical Assistance, $2,730,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $16,000,000 

below the request. The Department is encouraged to continue its 

efforts furthering improvements in mechanical insulation, an area 

which has the potential to yield significant energy and cost savings 

for the industrial, commercial, and manufacturing sectors. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The Federal Energy 

Management Program seeks to mitigate energy costs of the federal 

government by assisting federal agencies in reducing their energy 

usage. The Committee recommends $18,000,000, $12,000,000 below 

fiscal year 2012 and $14,000,000 below the budget request. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$26,400,000 for facilities and infrastructure, $7,000 below fiscal 

year 2012 and the same as the budget request. In future budget 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
90 

requests, the Department is directed to consolidate all facility operations and maintenance for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory into a budgetary line within Facilities and Infrastructure. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $115,000,000 

for program direction, $50,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$49,700,000 below the budget request. 

Strategic Programs.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 

for Strategic Programs, $15,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$48,900,000 below the request, to include $2,000,000 for the U.S.- 

Israel energy cooperative agreement. 

FEDERAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends a total of $86,560,000 for federal energy assistance programs, $41,440,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$108,440,000 below the budget request. 

Weatherization Assistance.—The Committee recommends 

$54,560,000 for the Weatherization Assistance Program, 

$13,440,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $84,440,000 below the 

budget request, of which $3,300,000 is for training and technical 

assistance. 

As of March 29, 2012, the weatherization program had more 

than $810,000,000 in combined unspent funds from prior-year appropriations and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (ARRA). The Department is directed to instruct the state, territory, and tribe weatherization programs to return weatherization 

operations to pre-ARRA levels as soon as possible. As in fiscal year 

2012, the bill includes a statutory provision allowing the Secretary 

to waive the weatherization allocation formula in order to distribute fiscal year 2013 funds to programs with insufficient carryover balances. This provision, combined with the new budget authority provided in the bill, will allow the Department to disburse 

funds such that each state, territory, and tribe can operate through 

its 2013 program year at approximately the fiscal year 2010 level. 

State Energy Program.—The Committee recommends 

$25,000,000 for the State Energy Program, $25,000,000 below fiscal 

year 2012 and $24,000,000 below the request, all for formula 

grants. 

Tribal Energy Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$7,000,000 for tribal energy projects, $3,000,000 below fiscal year 

2012 and the same as the budget request, to continue providing assistance to tribes for developing sustainable and economical energy 

solutions for their communities. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $139,103,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 143,015,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 123,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥16,103,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥20,015,000 

The Committee recommends $123,000,000 for Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, $16,103,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$20,015,000 below the budget request. Taking into account the reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
91 

scission of $397,000 in fiscal year 2012, the recommendation is 

$16,500,000 below fiscal year 2012. 

The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program advances technologies and provides operational support to increase 

the efficiency, resilience, and security of the nation’s electricity delivery system. The power grid employs aging technologies at a time 

when power demands, the deployment of new intermittent technologies, and rising security threats are imposing new stresses on 

the system. The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability aims to develop a modern power grid by advancing cyber security technologies, intelligent and high-efficiency grid components, 

and energy storage systems. 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $83,400,000 for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and Development, 

$16,090,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $20,000,000 below the 

budget request. The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability, $1,490,000 below fiscal year 2012 

and the same as the budget request, to include $9,695,000 for Advanced Modeling Grid Research, $305,000 below fiscal year 2012 

and the same as the budget request. Within available funds, the 

Department is directed to support research and development of 

cost-competitive transmission components using high-temperature 

superconducting and ambient-temperature conducting materials 

with increased efficiency, capacity, durability, longevity, and reliability. The Committee recommends $14,400,000 for Smart Grid Research and Development, $9,600,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the 

same as the budget request, and $15,000,000 for Energy Storage 

Research and Development, $5,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

the same as the budget request. 

The Committee recommends no funds for the proposed Electricity Systems Energy Innovation Hub, $20,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for cyber security for 

energy delivery systems research and development, the same as fiscal year 2012 and the budget request. Within the cyber security research program, the Department is directed to explore the potential 

benefits of a test grid capable of conducting full-scale research, 

testing and evaluation of cyber security effects on the grid, including integration of wireless technologies and systems. The Department is directed to submit to the Committee a prioritized list of 

current and potential testing capabilities, including a full-scale test 

grid. 

Permitting, Siting and Analysis.—The Committee recommends 

$6,000,000, $1,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the 

budget request. 

Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration.—The Committee 

recommends $6,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2012 and the 

budget request. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $27,600,000, 

$590,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $15,000 below the budget request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
92 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $765,391,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 770,445,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 765,391,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥5,054,000 

The Committee recommends $765,391,000 for Nuclear Energy, 

the same as fiscal year 2012 and $5,054,000 below the budget request. Excluding a rescission of $3,272,000 in fiscal year 2012, the 

recommendation is $3,272,000 below fiscal year 2012. Taking into 

account the budget request’s proposed relocation of $95,000,000 for 

Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security into this account, which is 

not supported in this recommendation, the programmatic level for 

Nuclear Energy is $89,946,000 above the budget request. The recommendation provides $93,350,000 for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards 

and Security within Other Defense Activities, the same as fiscal 

year 2012. 

Nuclear power generates approximately one fifth of the nation’s 

electricity and will continue to be an important base-load energy 

source in the future. The Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy 

program invests in research, development, and demonstration activities that develop the next generation of clean and safe reactors, 

further improve the safety of our current reactor fleet, and contribute to the nation’s long-term leadership in the global nuclear 

power industry. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $462,376,000 for Nuclear Energy Research and Development, $9,601,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$79,946,000 above the request. 

Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.—For this program, which 

funds activities that support the full spectrum of nuclear research 

across the Department, the Committee recommends $75,000,000, 

$120,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $9,682,000 above the budget 

request. The recommendation includes $14,563,000 for the National 

Science User Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory, $17,000 

below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the request, and 

$24,588,000 for the Modeling and Simulation Energy Innovation 

Hub, $288,000 above fiscal year 2012 and the same as the request. 

Integrated University Program.—The Committee recommends 

$5,000,000 to continue the Integrated University Program, which is 

critical to ensuring the nation’s nuclear science and engineering 

workforce in future years. 

Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support.—The Committee recognizes the potential economic, safety, manufacturing, 

and grid planning advantages of small modular reactors, and the 

Committee recommends $114,000,000, $47,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2012 and $49,000,000 above the request, to provide licensing 

and first-of-a-kind engineering support for two reactor designs. The 

recommended amount brings this program’s annual average to 

$90,500,000, the rate necessary to meet the expected total cost of 

$452,000,000 over five years. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
93 

Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration.— 

The Committee recommends $126,660,000, $11,116,000 above fiscal 

year 2012 and $52,986,000 above the request. The recommendation 

includes $28,674,000 for Small Modular Reactors (SMR) Advanced 

Concepts Research and Development, the same as fiscal year 2012 

and $10,195,000 above the request; $22,986,000 for Advanced Reactor Concepts, $1,116,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $10,609,000 

above the request; and $25,000,000 for Light Water Reactor Sustainability, the same as fiscal year 2012 and $3,339,000 above the 

request. 

The recommendation also includes $50,000,000 for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program, $10,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 

and $28,843,000 above the request, to continue research and development into high-temperature and accident-tolerant fuels and materials, including TRISO particles and graphite, to continue development of a licensing framework, and to continue engaging with industry. 

Fuel Cycle Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $138,716,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development, 

$48,635,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $36,722,000 below the request. Within available funds, the recommendation includes 

$38,000,000, $22,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $21,668,000 

below the budget request, for the following Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition activities: 

• Storage.—The recommendation provides $7,000,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund and used in support of the 

Yucca Mountain geological repository, for development of standardized container specifications and design of standardized containers. 

• Transportation.—The recommendation provides $8,000,000 for 

transportation research and development and other related activities, all in support of the Yucca Mountain geological repository. Of 

this amount, $3,000,000 is to be derived from the Nuclear Waste 

Fund for work related to transportation procedures, emergency responder training, and interaction with transportation stakeholders. 

The remaining amount is for research and development into transportation of spent fuel following storage. 

• Disposal.—The recommendation provides $23,000,000, the 

same as the request, to conduct planning, research, development, 

demonstration and characterization of geologic disposal environments and approaches, in support of additional geological repositories that will be needed after Yucca Mountain becomes operational. 

In its fiscal year 2013 budget request for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition, the Department includes funding for a number of activities relating to programs that would require legislative changes 

recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission. To date, the Department has not proposed any such legislation, nor has it proposed any comprehensive nuclear waste management plan different 

from that set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. More importantly, Congress has not made any changes to the authorized plan 

of record, which continues to be Yucca Mountain. Therefore, no 

funding is provided for the requested activities, including extended 

storage research and development, activities related to consolidated 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
94 

interim storage, and work in preparation of voluntary siting processes. 

International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000, the same as the request, for International 

Nuclear Energy Cooperation. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Radiological Facilities Management program maintains safe 

and effective operation of the critical infrastructure that provides 

radioisotope power systems production capabilities for defense and 

space agency users. These outside users fund the Department’s 

operational, production, and research activities on a reimbursable 

basis. The Committee recommends $51,000,000, $18,888,000 below 

fiscal year 2012 and the same as the request. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $162,000,000, $7,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $10,000,000 above the request, for Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Operations and Infrastructure. 

Construction.—The recommendation includes $6,280,000, the 

same as the request, for design and construction of the RemoteHandled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project, a joint project with 

Naval Reactors. The recommendation also includes $1,500,000 for 

design and construction of the Advanced Post-Irradiation Examination Capabilities Project, which will create world-leading capabilities for analysis of post-irradiation materials. 

The Committee continues to fund operations of the Idaho National Laboratories National Science User Facility within Nuclear 

Energy Enabling Technologies, as proposed in the budget request 

and adopted by the Congress in fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee includes Idaho Safeguards and Security funding 

within Other Defense Activities as it has been provided previously, 

rather than in this account as proposed in the budget request. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $90,015,000 for Program Direction, 

$985,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget request. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $346,703,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 420,575,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 554,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +207,297,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +133,425,000 

The Committee recommends $554,000,000 for Fossil Energy Research and Development, $207,297,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$133,425,000 above the budget request. After accounting for rescissions of $187,297,000 in fiscal year 2012, the recommendation is 

$20,000,000 above fiscal year 2012. 

Fossil energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide approximately 83 percent of all energy used by the nation’s 

homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
95 

of our needs for the foreseeable future. The Fossil Energy Research 

and Development program funds research, development, and demonstration activities to improve existing technologies and develop 

next-generation systems in the full spectrum of fossil energy areas. 

At a time when fossil fuel power generation is expanding around 

the globe and gas prices are at record high levels, the activities 

funded within this program advance our nation’s position as a leader in fossil energy technologies and ensure that we use the full extent of our vast domestic resources safely and efficiently. 

Once again, the budget request proposes to focus funding within 

Fossil Energy Research and Development on carbon capture and 

sequestration technologies and projects. This focus underemphasizes two areas critical to our nation’s energy future: the efficient 

use of existing fossil energy resources, and the full, safe, and responsible use of untapped domestic resources. The Committee recommendation increases funding in these areas to improve the efficiency of power generation and to bolster efforts that can help protect Americans from future high gasoline and diesel prices. In addition to securing the domestic energy sector and protecting consumers and businesses from future increases in electricity and gas 

prices, technological advances in these areas will help American industry compete in the booming global marketplace for fossil energy 

technologies. 

The Committee notes that the Department of Energy’s National 

Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is a critical resource for the 

nation as it continues to expand the use and exploration of natural 

gas and other domestic fuel resources. The Committee believes the 

Department should continue to utilize the experience and expertise 

of NETL in these critical and growing research fields. 

Use of Prior-Year Balances.—The Department is directed to use 

$7,938,000 of prior-year balances, as proposed in the request. 

Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research Fund.—The recommendation does not include the 

proposed legislative repeal of this fund and its programs. 

COAL—CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $384,294,000 for Carbon Capture 

and Sequestration (CCS) and Power Systems, $15,685,000 above 

fiscal year 2012 and $108,425,000 above the budget request. 

Carbon Capture.—The Committee recommends $68,938,000, the 

same as fiscal year 2012 and $8,500,000 above the request. 

Carbon Storage.—The Committee recommends $115,345,000, 

$132,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $19,868,000 above the request. 

Of the amount above the request, $16,000,000 is for additional support of enhanced oil recovery technologies and projects, which can 

advance American industry and clean fossil energy power generation while increasing domestic oil production. 

Advanced Energy Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$110,000,000, $10,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $54,807,000 

above the budget request. Of this amount, the recommendation includes not less than $25,000,000 to continue the Department’s research, development, and demonstration of solid oxide fuel cell systems, which have the potential to increase substantially the efficiency of clean coal power generation systems, to create new opporVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
96 

tunities for the efficient use of natural gas, and to contribute significantly to the development of alternative-fuel vehicles. 

Within available funds, the recommendation includes 

$10,000,000 for coal-biomass to liquids activities, which seek to 

produce liquid fuels from blends of domestic coal and biomass resources with reduced emissions and land and water use through 

the integration of carbon capture and other technologies. 

Within Advanced Combustion Systems, the recommendation in- cludes $5,000,000 for High Performance Materials, $243,000 below 

fiscal year 2012 and $4,027,000 above the request. Within Gasification Systems, the recommendation includes $8,000,000, the same 

as fiscal year 2012, to continue activities improving advanced air 

separation technologies. 

Cross Cutting Research.—The Committee recommends 

$55,000,000 $5,837,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $25,250,000 

above the budget request. The recommendation includes not less 

than $13,000,000 for Sensors and Controls and Other Novel Concepts, $837,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $6,500,000 above the request, which supports the development of technologies critical to 

enhanced oil recovery and other advanced fossil energy systems. 

NETL Coal Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $35,011,000, $20,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the 

same as the request. The Committee notes that this program was 

funded within Program Direction prior to fiscal year 2012. The Department is directed to continue including in the budget request all 

full-time equivalent employee information within this program, as 

it does under Program Direction. 

NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for Natural Gas Technologies, $2,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and the same as the request. Of this amount, the recommendation includes $5,000,000 for 

research into the cost-effective and responsible extraction of methane hydrates, a vast and currently inaccessible resource whose 

total energy reserves rival those from all other known fossil fuels 

combined. 

The recommendation also includes $10,000,000 for research into 

shale gas extraction through hydraulic fracturing, $2,000,000 below 

the request. The Department of Energy’s role in energy research is 

to improve technologies in support of the consumer and industry. 

As such, any funding in the area of hydraulic fracturing, including 

funding to support the proposed joint effort with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior, is 

for research into hydraulic fracturing technologies that aims to 

both improve the economics and recoverability of reserves and to 

address the health, safety and environmental risks of shale gas extraction. 

The recommendation includes $2,000,000, the same as fiscal year 

2012, for the Department to continue the Risk Based Data Management System. 

UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

With gas prices once again at record levels, the Committee believes it is more important than ever to use all means possible to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
97 

increase the domestic oil supply. The nation has more than two 

trillion barrels in estimated shale oil reserves, but significant economic and environmental barriers prevent our effective use of this 

significant resource. To accelerate the safe and effective use of the 

nation’s shale oil reserves, the Committee recommends $25,000,000 

for shale oil technology research and development. The funding is 

to be used to support both research to improve the economics of oil 

production from shale oil, as well as to reduce the health, safety, 

and environmental risks associated with shale oil extraction. 

Not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, the Department shall provide to the Committee a program proposal with specific objectives and timelines for improving the efficiency and environmental effects of oil shale retrieval. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $115,753,000 for Program Direction, 

$4,247,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the request. The 

Committee notes that the recommendation also provides funding 

within CCS and Power Systems for NETL Coal Research and Development, an activity funded within Program Direction prior to 

fiscal year 2012. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $14,909,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 14,909,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 14,909,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the 

national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900s, and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 

1996 required the sale of the Government’s interest in the Naval 

Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR–1). To comply with this requirement, 

the Elk Hills field in California was sold to Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills, the transfer 

of the oil shale reserves, and transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

and environmental remediation of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 

(NPR–2) to the Department of the Interior, the Department retains 

one Naval Petroleum Reserve property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR–3) in Wyoming (Teapot Dome field). This is a stripper well oil field that the Department has maintained while it remained economically productive. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request focuses on implementation 

of a disposition plan for NPR–3 being developed in fiscal year 2012 

with production facilities remaining operational as long as economically viable. The budget request does not include funding for management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC) 

at NPR–3, proposing to allow only projects with fully reimbursable 

arrangements or fully funded by EERE’s Geothermal Technology 

Program. 

The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval 

petroleum and oil shale reserves is $14,909,000, the same as fiscal 

year 2012 and the budget request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
98 

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... $15,579,815 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 15,579,815 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +15,579,815 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

Payment to the State of California through the Elk Hills school 

lands fund was part of the settlement associated with the sale of 

the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 1 (NPR–1). Under the settlement, payments to the State are to total nine percent of the net 

proceeds of the sale. Payments to date have totaled $299,520,000. 

Final equity for the sale of NPR–1 was settled in fiscal year 2011, 

allowing the Department and the State to agree on the amount of 

a final payment. 

The Committee recommendation for the final payment is $15,579,815, the same as the budget request. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $192,704,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 195,609,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 195,609,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +2,905,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to store 

petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry out obligations 

under the international energy program. The capacity of the Reserve is 727 million barrels. The current inventory is 696 million 

barrels or approximately 80 days of net import protection for the 

United States economy. Operational activities planned for fiscal 

year 2013, however, serve to increase the inventory unavailable for 

drawdown, and therefore, reduce the net import protection to approximately 73 days. 

The Committee recommendation for the Strategic Petroleum Re- serve is $195,609,000, $2,905,000 above fiscal year 2012 and the 

same as the budget request. 

SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $¥500,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... ¥291,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +500,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +291,000,000 

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97–35) created the SPR Petroleum Account to fund all Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve petroleum acquisitions, associated transportation costs, 

U.S. customs duties, terminal throughput charges and other related miscellaneous costs. The account also funds the incremental 

costs of withdrawal and transportation of oil during an emergency 

drawdown and sale. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes cancellation of 

$291,000,000 in balances resulting from an International Energy 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
99 

Agency-coordinated release in fiscal year 2011. The request also 

proposes to repeal the royalty-in-kind authority. The Committee includes neither proposal. 

In the several months since the sale of oil from the SPR in fiscal 

year 2011, the Department has provided only a vague goal of refilling the Reserve in future years. The Committee is concerned that 

the proposal to reduce available funding and eliminate use of royalty-in-kind authority to carry out this future refill will impede the 

Department’s ability to maximize the strategic protection originally 

envisioned by establishment of the Reserve. The Committee encourages the Department to ensure implementation of the statutory purpose of the Reserve to be protection in case of ‘‘severe energy supply interruptions’’ rather than to be used as a tool to address short-term price considerations or to mask other Departmental spending. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $¥89,881,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 4,119,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 4,119,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +94,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the Northeast 

began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, through 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded contracts for the 

lease of commercial storage facilities and acquisition of heating oil. 

The purpose of the reserve is to assure home heating oil supplies 

for the Northeastern States during times of very low inventories 

and significant threats to the immediate supply of heating oil. The 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate 

entity from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The 

reserve contains one million barrels, with approximately one-half 

located in commercial facilities in Boston, Massachusetts, and approximately one-half located in commercial facilities in Groton, 

Connecticut. 

After accounting for the cancellation of funds in fiscal year 2012 and a rescission of $6,000,000 in prior-year balances in fiscal year 

2013, the Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home 

Heating Oil Reserve is $10,119,000, the same as fiscal year 2012 

and the budget request. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $105,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 116,365,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 100,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥16,365,000 

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-independent agency within the Department of Energy established to 

provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related information 

to the Congress, the executive branch, state governments, industry, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
100 

and the public. The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the 

Energy Information Administration, $5,000,000 below fiscal year 

2012 and $16,365,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee notes that the Energy Information Administration has had difficulty accurately estimating annual cellulosic 

biofuel production, as directed in the Clean Air Act and used as the 

basis for renewable fuel standard volumes. The Committee directs 

the Energy Information Administration to submit to the Committee, not later than 6 months after enactment of this Act, a report including the following: a summary of the current methods 

used to estimate cellulosic biofuel production, an analysis of factors 

contributing to uncertainty or inaccuracy in estimating cellulosic 

biofuel production, and a plan to increase the Energy Information 

Administration’s accuracy of cellulosic biofuel production estimates. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $235,306,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 198,506,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 198,506,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥36,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program includes 

funds to manage and cleanup sites used for civilian, energy research and non-defense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination 

that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. The 

Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup is $198,506,000, $36,800,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the 

same as the request. After accounting for a rescission in fiscal year 

2012 of $415,000, the recommendation is $37,215,000 below fiscal 

year 2012. 

Small Sites.—The Committee remains concerned about the lack 

of remediation activity taking place around the country at various 

Department-sponsored facilities and small sites classified as under 

the responsibility of the Department. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to submit detailed action plans on how it intends to remediate these small sites and sponsored facilities. The 

plan should include a description of the prioritization of these remediation efforts and identify those sites that, in the next two 

years, can demonstrate new models for site cleanup performed by 

private sector and third party organizations, such as universities, 

which could save the Department and taxpayers substantial funds 

over the traditional agency-led cleanup model and result in a faster 

cleanup without compromising public safety. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $472,180,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 442,493,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 425,493,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥46,687,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥17,000,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
101 

The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to 

pay for the cleanup of gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, 

Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and the East Tennessee Technology 

Park, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee recommends 

$425,493,000 for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment 

Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, $46,687,000 below 

fiscal year 2012 and $17,000,000 below the budget request. After 

accounting for a rescission in fiscal year 2012 of $750,000, the recommendation is $47,437,000 below fiscal year 2012. The Committee recommends $203,938,000 for Oak Ridge, $92,722,000 for Paducah, and $128,833,000 for Portsmouth. The 

Committee remains concerned about the impacts of an abrupt transition in funding levels on the workforce and local community at 

Portsmouth. The Committee is also concerned about the impacts on 

the Paducah community while it faces the uncertainty of continuing operations at the nation’s last operating gaseous diffusion 

uranium enrichment plant. While the Department has used nonappropriated funds to generate additional funding for cleanup at 

Portsmouth, the Department has not extended the policy to cleanup activities at Paducah. The Committee remains concerned about 

the Department’s use of uranium transfers and the uncertainty it 

causes for determining overall site funding levels, which should ultimately be set by the Congress. The Committee is also concerned 

that the Department’s practices attempt to circumvent the oversight that is needed to ensure that these transfers do not adversely 

impact our domestic uranium mining industry, and the Committee 

directs the Department to clearly outline all potential impacts to 

industry when it submits its excess uranium inventory management plan. The recommendation for Paducah includes $2,580,000 

requested for community and regulatory support. While budgets 

are expected to remain highly constrained, the Committee will continue to monitor developments. 

For the fourth year in a row, the budget request includes a request to reauthorize section 1802 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

and institute an additional tax on our nation’s nuclear utilities. 

The Department still has not developed a reliable estimate on the 

total costs to clean up the three gaseous diffusion sites. It also has 

not explained how reductions in the amount of requested funding 

or how the additional funding the Department is generating 

through the questionable use of its uranium bartering arrangement 

will impact the rate at which the Fund is depleted. At a time of 

rising energy prices, passing on these costs to industry and ultimately energy consumers without performing the most basic federal planning activities is indicative of the Department’s continued 

reliance on off-budget measures to provide temporary stopgaps instead of developing credible and affordable plans to meet clean up 

commitments. 

The budget request includes a proposal to separately identify 

funding for pension and community and regulatory support. The 

recommendation includes funding for these activities within each 

site, the same as in fiscal year 2012. 

Title X of the 1992 Energy Policy Act authorized use of a portion 

of the Fund to reimburse private licensees for the federal governVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:16 May 03, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
102 

ment’s share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites. The Department reports $32,756,000 in approved but 

unpaid claim balances and up to $241,495,000 in remaining potential liability. These activities are important to the health and safety 

of a number of communities and the Department should consider 

where progress can be made for site remediation and clean-up work 

at residential sites, public school properties, and other sensitive locations. 

SCIENCE

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $4,873,634,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 4,992,052,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 4,801,431,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥72,203,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥190,621,000 

The Office of Science funds basic science research across national 

laboratories, universities, and other research institutions in support of American innovation and the Department’s energy-focused 

missions. Through research in physics, biology, chemistry, and 

other science disciplines, these activities expand scientific understanding and secure the nation’s leadership in energy innovation. 

The Office of Science funds a significant portion of science research 

nationwide. 

The Science program office includes Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, 

Nuclear Physics, Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Safeguards and Security, and Science Program Direction. 

The Committee recommendation is $4,801,431,000, $72,203,000 

below fiscal year 2012 and $190,621,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes $4,824,931,000 in new budget authority and a rescission of $23,500,000 in prior-year balances available due to the Office of Science’s termination of two major items 

of equipment in fiscal year 2012. After accounting for that rescission and a rescission of $15,366,000 in fiscal year 2012, the recommendation is $64,069,000 below fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee is concerned about the long-term science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce pipeline development for underrepresented minorities and notes the National Academies recommendation that the federal government offer support 

for undergraduate and graduate STEM programs focused on increasing the participation and success of minority students through 

engaged mentoring, enriching research experiences, and opportunities to publish, present, and network. Accordingly, the Committee 

expects the Office of Science to provide continued support to minority serving institutions toward those ends. 

Use of Prior-Year Balances.—The Department is directed to use 

$9,104,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
103 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program 

develops and hosts some of the world’s fastest computing and network capabilities to enable science and energy modeling, simulation, and research. The Committee recommends $442,000,000 for 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research, the same as fiscal year 

2012 and $13,593,000 below the request. 

Exascale Computing.—The Committee continues to support the 

exascale initiative, which seeks to develop the next generation of 

computing systems three orders of magnitude faster than today’s 

fastest systems. This decade-long effort is critical to enabling basic 

and energy-focused science research not previously possible and to 

maintaining the nation’s global leadership in computing technologies. 

In the fiscal year 2012 conference report, the Department was directed to submit a detailed joint Science-NNSA exascale plan by 

February 10, 2012. This report, which would provide context for 

long-term resource planning and prioritization, still has not been 

submitted as of early April 2012. The Department was made aware 

of the reporting requirement after the House and Senate Committees completed consideration in June and September of 2011, respectively, and there has been ample time for preparation since. 

While the Committee appreciates the efforts within the Office of 

Science to draft the report, it remains concerned that such an extended approval process is necessary to summarize the programmatic outline of a central feature of the Department’s computing programs. The Administration should not further delay the 

report’s formal submittal due to a drawn-out concurrence process. 

The budget request highlights data-intensive computing as a necessary enabler for exascale systems and calls out work in this area 

separately from the exascale initiative. The Committee expects that 

the Department has integrated into the exascale report any plans 

for work on computing challenges related to data-intensive science. 

Leadership Computing.—In addition to the long-term exascale 

initiative, the Committee supports continued upgrade and operation of the Leadership Computing Facilities at Argonne and Oak 

Ridge National Laboratories and of the High Performance Production Computing capabilities at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These systems’ capabilities are a critical component of science 

and industrial research and development across the nation, and 

they should be maintained as world-leading facilities. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Basic Energy Sciences program funds basic research in materials science, chemistry, geoscience, and bioscience. The science 

breakthroughs in this program enable a broad array of innovations 

in energy technologies and other industries critical to American 

economic competitiveness. The Committee recommends 

$1,657,146,000 for Basic Energy Sciences, $36,854,000 below fiscal 

year 2012 and $142,446,000 below the request. 

The program’s budget consists of funding for research, for the operation of existing user facilities, and for the design, procurement, 

and construction of new facilities and equipment. The long-term 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
104 

success of the program hinges on striking a careful balance between these three areas. However, the increasing level of research 

commitments and completion of new facilities make it difficult to 

adequately fund all three components of the Basic Energy Sciences 

program within realistic budgetary constraints. The Committee 

cautions the Department against assuming an ever-increasing 

budget when planning the balance between facility runtime, construction, and research funding. 

The Committee recognizes the critical contribution that the program’s light sources, neutron sources, and other user facilities 

make to scientific discovery and American industry. The United 

States is currently host to the world’s most advanced and productive basic energy science user facilities, and the Department is 

urged to develop a plan for the next generation of light sources and 

other user facilities in order to maintain American leadership 

through the next decade. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $1,559,943,000 for Research within Basic Energy Sciences, $17,343,000 above fiscal year 

2012 and $128,946,000 below the request. The recommendation includes $24,237,000 for the fourth year of 

the Fuels from Sunlight Energy Innovation Hub, the same as the 

request; $24,237,000 for the second year of the Batteries and Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub, the same as the request; and 

$100,000,000 for Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC’s), 

$20,000,000 below the request. The recommendation does not include additional funding for joint work between the EFRC’s and 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy due to inadequate justification by the Department; any such joint work can be 

supported by the funding provided for the EFRC’s. However, any 

such effort should be communicated to the Committee prior to commencement. 

The recommendation includes $10,000,000 for predictive simulation of internal combustion engines, the same as fiscal year 2012 

and $1,000,000 below the request. The Committee provides no 

funds, $8,520,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the request, for the 

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. 

The recommendation includes $32,000,000 for major items of 

equipment, $41,500,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the 

request, to include $20,000,000 for the Advanced Photon Source 

Upgrade and $12,000,000 for NSLS-II Experimental Tools, both the 

same as the request. 

The recommendation includes $776,568,000 for facility operations, $46,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $33,426,000 below 

the request. The increase above fiscal year 2012 is for preliminary 

operations of the NSLS-II as it completes construction and to increase operating time of other Basic Energy Sciences facilities to 

near-optimal levels. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $97,203,000 for 

Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, $54,197,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $13,500,000 below the request. The reduction 

from fiscal year 2012 is due to the planned decrease in funding for 

the National Synchrotron Light Source II as it nears completion. 

The recommendation includes the first year of construction funding 

for the Linac Coherent Light Source II two-tunnel upgrade project. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
105 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Biological and Environmental Research program supports 

advances in energy technologies and related science through research into complex biological and environmental systems. The 

Committee recommends $542,000,000 for Biological and Environmental Research, $69,823,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$83,347,000 below the request. 

The Committee continues to support the Biological Systems 

Science program, which focuses on the biology of plants and microbes with the ultimate goal of enabling future generations of 

biofuels from a variety of sustainable domestic biomass sources. In 

addition to reducing our nation’s dependence on petroleum-based 

fuels with chronically high prices, the biofuels produced through 

this program’s science breakthroughs can lower the cost of, improve 

the sustainability of, and ease industry’s transition to those fuel alternatives. 

The Committee recommends $75,000,000, the same as fiscal year 

2012 and the request, for the first year of the second five-year term 

of the three BioEnergy Research Centers (BRC’s). However, the 

Committee notes that the report justifying the renewal of the 

BRC’s, due on February 6, 2012, has not yet been submitted. The 

funding for the BRC’s in fiscal year 2013 and the Committee’s approval of their renewal is therefore contingent upon the Department’s submission of the report. Further, the Department is directed to report to the Committee, not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, on the specific recommendations for improvements to the BRC’s that came out of the 5-year review and the Department’s plan to implement those recommendations. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports basic research 

and experimentation aiming to harness nuclear fusion for energy 

production. The Committee recommends $474,617,000 for fusion 

energy sciences, $72,440,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$76,293,000 above the request. 

The domestic fusion program is a critical component of United 

States science leadership and a necessary building block of any successful fusion projects, including ITER. The recommendation includes $296,617,000 for the domestic fusion program, $560,000 

below fiscal year 2012 and $48,293,000 above the request. The request proposes to shut down the Alcator C-Mod facility and provides only enough funding for decommissioning and existing graduate students. The Department is instead directed to continue operations at the Alcator C-Mod facility and to fund continued research, operations, and upgrades across the Office of Science’s domestic fusion enterprise. 

The recommendation includes $178,000,000 for the United States 

contribution to ITER, the international collaboration to construct 

the world’s first self-sustaining experimental fusion reactor, 

$73,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $28,000,000 above the request. 

ITER is an important international collaboration that represents 

a major step forward in fusion energy science, but its funding reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
106 

quirements will create substantial budgetary challenges throughout 

the decade. The Committee appreciates that the Office of Science 

is grappling with these challenges but notes that the budget request does not propose a viable or well-planned solution. The Committee recommendation includes funding to continue the domestic 

fusion program at approximately the fiscal year 2012 level, and to 

increase ITER towards its planned funding level for fiscal year 

2013. Looking forward, however, the increasing requirements for 

ITER will continue to pose challenges, and the Committee believes 

that long-term policy decisions for the Fusion Energy Sciences 

should be guided by impartial analysis of scientific needs and opportunities, and with an eye on American competitiveness and 

leadership. The Committee therefore reiterates the importance of 

the ten-year plan for Fusion Energy Sciences directed in the fiscal 

year 2012 appropriations conference report, of that plan’s timely 

delivery, and of the inclusion of priorities across domestic and 

international fusion facilities, projects, and programs. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The High Energy Physics program supports fundamental research into the elementary constituents of matter and energy, and 

ultimately into the nature of space and time. The program focuses 

on particle physics theory and experimentation in three areas: the 

energy frontier, which investigates new particles and fundamental 

forces through high-energy experimentation; the intensity frontier, 

which focuses on rare events to better understand our fundamental 

model of the universe’s elementary constituents; and the cosmic 

frontier, which investigates the nature of the universe and its form 

of matter and energy on cosmic scales. The Committee recommends 

$776,521,000 for High Energy Physics, $15,179,000 below fiscal 

year 2012 and the same as the budget request. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $740,521,000 for Research, which includes activities in proton, electron, non-accelerator, and theoretical physics. The recommendation includes 

$10,000,000 for dewatering and minimal operations of the 

Homestake mine, the same as the request, as the Department continues to evaluate a path forward for the Long Baseline Neutrino 

Experiment and its alternatives. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $36,000,000 for construction, $8,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $16,000,000 above 

the request. The recommendation includes $20,000,000 for project 

engineering and design of the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment. 

The recommendation also includes $16,000,000, $12,000,000 

above fiscal year 2012 and $16,000,000 above the request, for 

project engineering and design of the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) and its alternatives. The recommendation includes no funding for long-lead procurements or construction activities for the LBNE project, the same as fiscal year 2012. The Committee recognizes the importance of this project to maintaining 

American leadership in the intensity frontier and to basic science 

discovery of neutrino and standard model physics. However, the 

Committee also recognizes that LBNE construction must be affordable under a flat budget scenario. As such, the Committee supports 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
107 

the Office of Science’s challenge to the High Energy Physics community to identify an LBNE construction approach that avoids 

large out-year funding spikes or to identify viable alternatives with 

similar scientific benefits at significantly lower cost. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $547,938,000 for Nuclear Physics, 

$2,062,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $21,000,000 above the request. 

The Committee notes that funding requirements for construction 

and operation of all operating and currently-planned facilities in 

the Nuclear Physics program are likely to be in excess of available 

budgets in future years. The Committee therefore supports the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee’s review of these facilities and 

encourages an expedited process that can inform the prioritization 

and hard decisions that will likely be necessary next year. 

Operations and Maintenance.—The Committee recommends 

$507,366,000 for nuclear physics operations and maintenance, 

$7,366,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $21,000,000 above the request. The recommendation includes $159,571,000 for Relativistic 

Heavy Ion Collider Operations, $1,954,000 above fiscal year 2012 

and $3,000,000 above the budget request, to support a standalone 

run of approximately 15 weeks in fiscal year 2013. The recommendation also includes $40,000,000 for the Facility for Rare 

Isotope Beams, $18,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and the request, 

to continue activities leading towards the approval of construction. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $40,572,000, 

$9,428,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the same as the request, to 

continue construction of the 12 GeV Upgrade of the Continuous 

Electron Beam Accelerator Facility. 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $14,500,000 for workforce development for teachers and scientists, $4,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 

and the same as the request. The recommendation includes no 

funds for the Office of Science Graduate Fellowship, the same as 

the request. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $112,313,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, $513,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$5,477,000 below the budget request. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $82,000,000, the same as fiscal year 

2012 and $2,000,000 below the budget request, to meet safeguards 

and security requirements at Office of Science facilities. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $185,000,000 for Science Program 

Direction, the same as fiscal year 2012 and $17,551,000 below the 

request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
108 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $275,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 350,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 200,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥75,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥150,000,000 

The Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E) supports research aimed at rapidly developing energy technologies 

whose development and commercialization are too risky to attract 

sufficient private sector investment, but that are capable of significantly changing the energy sector to address our critical economic 

and energy security challenges. Projects funded by ARPA–E include such wide-ranging areas as production processes for transportation fuel alternatives that can reduce our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling technologies with exceptionally high 

energy efficiency, and improvements in petroleum refining processes. The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency—Energy, $75,000,000 below fiscal year 

2012 and $150,000,000 below the budget request, of which 

$20,000,000 is for program direction, the same as fiscal year 2012 

and $5,000,000 below the request. 

The Committee is pleased with ARPA–E’s increased focus on 

transportation technologies, and urges the program to continue 

supporting research and development that can make a substantial 

difference to the impact of future high gas prices on American families and businesses. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... ............................

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... $25,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +25,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +25,000,000 

The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000, 

$25,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $25,000,000 above the request, to continue the Department of Energy’s congressionally-mandated activities to continue the Yucca Mountain license application 

activity. Of this funding, $5,000,000 is available to provide assistance pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) to 

affected units of government which have formally provided consent 

to the Secretary of Energy to host a high-level geological repository 

as authorized in the NWPA. 

While the Committee notes that some of the recommendations of 

the Administration’s ‘‘Blue Ribbon Commission’’ may have merit, 

Congress has neither formally considered nor approved them. In 

addition, the implementation of many of the recommendations 

would require changes to authorizing statutes. Nuclear waste disposal is too complex of an issue for the Administration to unilaterally develop or implement policy, and the Committee encourages 

the Administration to take this into account while formulating its 

fiscal year 2014 budget request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
109 

The Committee notes that Nye County, the unit of local government within which Yucca Mountain is located, has formally notified the Secretary of Energy that it consents to hosting a high-level 

waste repository. The Administration does not have authorization 

to begin a ‘‘consensus-based’’ approach to selecting the location for 

the next waste repository, but Nye County’s official declaration 

once again clarifies that the Administration’s repeated statements 

that Yucca Mountain is not a ‘‘workable option’’ ignores both the 

support of the host community and the expressed intent of Congress. 

TITLE 17 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $38,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 38,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 38,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $¥38,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... ¥38,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥38,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The budget request for the Loan Guarantee program includes administrative expenses of $38,000,000, which are offset by fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The Committee recommends administrative expenses of 

$38,000,000, which are fully offset. 

While the recommendation includes no support for additional 

guarantees, the Committee notes that the Department has hundreds of millions in unobligated appropriated subsidy costs from 

prior Acts, as well as unused loan guarantee authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear projects. The Committee also notes that in 

early April, 2012, the Administration gave notice that it would be 

soliciting further applications for the approximately $170,000,000 

of renewable subsidies remaining unobligated from prior year appropriations. Given the concerns Congress and the public have regarding this program, the Committee directs the Department to ensure that taxpayer investments can be protected before issuing any 

new loan guarantees or modifications. In addition, the Committee 

expects the Department to provide quarterly updates to the Committee on the health of its existing portfolio. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
110 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $6,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 9,000,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥3,000,000 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established 

a direct loan program to support the development of advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the United States. 

The program provides loans to automobile and automobile part 

manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and for associated engineering integration costs. The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, the same as fiscal 

year 2012 and $3,000,000 below the budget request. The funds provided support administrative operations only. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $237,623,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 230,783,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 230,783,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥6,840,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $¥111,623,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... ¥108,188,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥108,188,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +3,435,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $126,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 122,595,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 122,595,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥3,405,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $230,783,000, $6,840,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the 

same as the budget request. The recommendation for revenues is 

$108,188,000 as requested, resulting in a net appropriation of 

$122,595,000. Funding recommended for Departmental Administration provides for general management and program support functions benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. The account 

funds a wide array of Headquarters activities not directly associated with the execution of specific programs. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
111 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.—The Committee 

recommends $2,506,000 for this office, the same as the request, to 

coordinate and implement energy management, conservation, education, and delivery systems for Native Americans. 

Economic Impact and Diversity, Program Support.—Within available funds, the Committee recommends $1,000,000 for Minority 

Economic Impact, the same as fiscal year 2012 and $400,000 more 

than the request. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $42,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 43,468,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 43,468,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +1,468,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performs agency-wide 

audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct 

management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions 

for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and performance audits 

of programs and operations. The inspection function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, 

and economy of programs and operations. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel and operations. 

The Committee recommendation is $43,468,000, $1,468,000 

above fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) consist of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator; 

outside of the NNSA, these include Defense Environmental Management and Other Defense Activities. Descriptions of each of these 

accounts are provided below. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology and reducing the global danger from the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these responsibilities. Established in March 

2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2000, the NNSA is responsible for the management and operation of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex, naval 

reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. Three offices within the NNSA carry out the Department’s national security mission: 

the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and the Office of Naval Reactors. The Office of the 

NNSA Administrator oversees all NNSA programs. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
112 

Pensions.—The Committee remains concerned about the continually escalating costs of contractor pensions and other postretirement benefits and their impacts on programmatic activities. From 

the additional information provided in the fiscal year 2013 budget 

request, it is clear that benefits offered to contractor employees 

vary widely across the nuclear security enterprise. The Committee 

supports continued review of pension and other postretirement benefits offered to contractor employees and the expeditious implementation of fair reforms to ensure rising costs do not impact ongoing 

high priority programmatic activities. 

Tritium and Enriched Uranium Management.—In the budget request for fiscal year 2013, the Administration has argued for funding to develop domestic uranium enrichment technology for national security purposes. The information provided to the Committee supporting this request reveals a lack of planning for maintaining adequate supplies of unencumbered enriched uranium for 

tritium production, and options for tritium production could be limited as early as 2015. These circumstances were not reported in the 

ten-year plans for stockpile management. Due to this failure to 

plan adequately for pressing stockpile needs, the bill contains statutory language on planning for tritium production and management of the Department’s supply of enriched uranium. 

Laboratory-Directed Research and Development (LDRD).—LDRD 

at our national laboratories can be used to encourage innovation 

and contributes to workforce retention. The three national security 

laboratories, Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore, continue to devote the highest proportion to LDRD of all Department 

national laboratories, according to the latest LDRD report to Congress for fiscal year 2011. The funding increases for the NNSA supported by the Committee over the past two years have clearly benefitted these activities, contrary to the characterization in a recent 

National Academies study that funding for these activities is reduced, restricted, and inflexible. Relative to fiscal year 2010, total 

LDRD funding grew by 5.2% at Sandia, 8.9% at Lawrence Livermore, and 9.4% at Los Alamos. The recommendation continues 

funding for the LDRD program. 

The Committee recommends $11,275,000,000 for the NNSA, 

$275,000,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $260,886,000 below the 

budget request. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $7,214,120,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 7,577,341,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 7,512,341,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +298,221,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥65,000,000 

Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and performance of the nation’s nuclear weapons 

stockpile. The activities funded under this appropriation include 

the maintenance and refurbishment of nuclear weapons to sustain 

confidence in their security, safety, and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms reduction treaties. The ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
113 

mittee recommends $7,512,341,000 for Weapons Activities, 

$298,221,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $65,000,000 below the 

budget request. After accounting for a rescission of $19,877,000 in 

fiscal year 2012 and the rescission of $65,000,000 in this bill, the 

recommendation is $343,344,000 above fiscal year 2012 and the 

same as the request. 

Although the overall request for Weapons Activities in fiscal year 

2013 has been reduced by the Administration from previous estimates, the request includes substantial increases for modernization 

activities supporting full scale engineering development for the B61 

life extension program, continuation of design activities for a common warhead for the W78/W88, construction of the Uranium Processing Facility, and the initiation of numerous infrastructure maintenance and repair projects. The Committee will continue to assess 

the merits of requested activities as they individually support advancement of the modernization goals outlined in the 2010 Nuclear 

Posture Review. To ensure that nuclear modernization remains a 

priority, the recommendation includes full funding for these modernization activities. However, the Committee remains concerned 

about the NNSA’s ability to fully account for the costs of the modernization or to anticipate the full scope of activities that will be 

needed to ensure the nation’s nuclear stockpile remains reliable 

and effective. 

Furthermore, the Committee is concerned about reports that the 

Administration is considering what could be drastic reductions in 

U.S. nuclear forces. With fiscal constraints becoming a stark reality 

for all national security activities, the NNSA has yet to resolve its 

plans for modernizing the stockpile against likely funding levels. 

Without a coherent plan to sustain an aging nuclear stockpile or 

a national consensus on this critical strategic asset, it is premature 

to make any further reductions. The Committee provides no funding in fiscal year 2013 to plan for or reduce stockpile levels below 

New START levels. 

The Committee provided direction to the NNSA in the fiscal year 

2012 report to actively pursue cost reduction strategies for its 

major modernization projects. The fiscal year 2013 budget request 

includes programmatic changes which presumably attempt to make 

the modernization program more affordable, such as the five-year 

delay to the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) and selection of a lower cost option for the B61 life extension program. While the Committee has 

determined these decisions will not adversely impact sustainment 

of the stockpile in the near term since alternatives are available, 

they have confused and muddled the path forward and ultimately 

reveal the lack of alternatives previously considered. By not fully 

considering all available options, millions of taxpayer dollars have 

been spent for work which will not be needed until a much later 

date. Considering the importance of the nuclear modernization efforts, the short timelines to produce the needed replacement components, and the current fiscal environment, there is neither the 

time nor resources for pursuits which will not bear fruit for many 

years. 

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

directed to report the total amount of funding it has spent to date 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
114 

for development and experimental activity associated with the full 

option for the B61 life extension program. Not later than 60 days 

after enactment of this Act, the NNSA is further directed to prepare a report on its near-term five-year plutonium sustainment 

strategy as well as an assessment of alternatives for meeting enduring needs beyond the five-year timeframe according to clearly 

explained assumptions for capabilities, capacities, and stockpile 

levels. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommends $2,069,147,000 for Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), $189,620,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$19,127,000 below the budget request. Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear 

stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification, dismantlement, and disposal activities. 

Stockpile Production Performance.—The Committee is deeply 

concerned about the NNSA’s performance and ability to deliver on 

its production requirements. For years, the NNSA has struggled to 

increase production of the W76–1, deliver limited life components, 

and perform an acceptable number of surveillances. The NNSA 

now proposes to slow its delivery plans to the Navy so that it can 

begin work on developing the B61–12, providing virtually no margin to accommodate the host of challenges that the NNSA continues to grapple with, such as quality assurance issues, work stoppages, and antiquated manufacturing management systems. The 

Committee recommends an additional $45,069,000 above the request for the W76 life extension program and directs the NNSA to 

modify its planning to sustain this level of output through completion of the W76–1. The recommendation includes other oversight 

measures to improve production performance, including an additional $25,000,000 within production support for investments which 

will improve manufacturing material handling, planning and 

scheduling, and additional flexibility in funding controls for Stockpile Systems. 

Accounting for the Costs of Modernization.—Last year, the Committee directed the NNSA to simplify how it budgets for the costs 

of its early life extension and refurbishment activities and to improve the transparency of these considerable costs in its budget request. As of mid-April 2012, the NNSA reports it is still assessing 

and validating the funding estimates for the W78 life extension and 

W88 alteration studies. With cost accounting still unclear, the 

Committee recommends full funding for the ongoing early life extension and refurbishment activities for the W78 and W88 within 

a new funding category, Stockpile Assessment and Design. By separately funding these high priority activities, their costs are more 

transparent and can be distinguished from the costs of routine 

stockpile work under Stockpile Systems. This change allows the 

controls for routine stockpile work to be combined, providing additional flexibility. However, the NNSA should still show funding 

proposed by each stockpile system in its budget request. 

Consistent with these oversight initiatives, the recommendation 

reallocates funding for experimental activities from Directed Stockpile Work to Campaigns in order to distinguish the considerable 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
115 

costs of new development and technology maturation from the costs 

of routine experimental work to certify current stockpile systems. 

The NNSA used its authority under the Continuing Resolution in 

fiscal year 2011 to increase funding for Research and Development 

Certification and Safety and Management, Technology and Production by approximately $45,000,000. This funding was used to ramp 

up work on surety and use control technologies for the B61 life extension program which were ultimately not selected in the baseline 

design. In order to ensure adequate funding for science, the recommendation subsequently increases funding within the Science 

and Engineering Campaigns to realign development of surety and 

use control technologies and plutonium experiments not specifically 

related to the ongoing B61, W78, and W88 programs. This funding 

reallocation provides considerable flexibility within Campaigns for 

technology maturation that will apply to the refurbishment of multiple stockpile systems, but allows the Committee to conduct better 

oversight of the NNSA’s scientific experimental activities. As directed by the Committee in fiscal year 2012, funding for development for potential introduction into a particular system should be 

requested within the corresponding life extension program or stockpile system. 

B61 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$369,000,000, the same as the budget request. 

W76 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$220,000,000, $45,069,000 above the budget request. 

Stockpile Assessment and Design.—The Committee recommends 

$136,252,000, which includes the full amount requested for the 

W78 life extension and the W88 alteration studies. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee recommends $454,157,000 

for Stockpile Systems, which fully funds the request for limited life 

component exchange and surveillance activities. 

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.—The Committee recommends $51,265,000, the same as the request. 

Production Support.—The Committee recommends $390,405,000, 

$25,000,000 above the request. Additional funding is provided for 

investments needed to modernize manufacturing processes. Many 

production operations continue to use outdated management systems for production operations that should be updated. 

Research and Development Support.—The Committee recommends $28,103,000, the same as the request. 

Research and Development Certification and Safety.—The Committee recommends $145,000,000, $46,632,000 below the request. 

No funding is provided within this activity for any new development activities, including maturation of surety, use control, or 

other technology upgrades under consideration for insertion as part 

of limited life component exchanges, refurbishments, or life extensions. Future requests for this activity should be limited to scientific activities needed for annual assessment and certification of 

the stockpile and to resolve significant finding investigations. 

Management, Technology and Production.—The Committee recommends $140,000,000, $35,844,000 below the request. No funding 

is provided within this activity for any new development activities, 

including maturation of surety, use control, or other technology upgrades under consideration for insertion as part of limited life comVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
116 

ponent exchanges, refurbishments, or life extensions. Future requests for this activity should be limited to scientific activities 

needed for annual assessment and certification of the stockpile and 

to resolve significant finding investigations. 

Plutonium Infrastructure Sustainment.—The Committee recommends $134,965,000, $6,720,000 below the request. The recommendation sustains capabilities at the fiscal year 2012 level, 

after accounting for the completion of funding for a major item of 

equipment. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are focused on efforts involving the three weapons 

laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production plants, 

and selected external organizations to address critical capabilities 

needed to achieve program objectives. For Campaigns, the Committee recommends $1,735,675,000, $33,693,000 above fiscal year 

2012 and $44,905,000 above the budget request. 

Science Campaign.—The Committee recommends $377,104,000, 

$43,065,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $27,000,000 above the 

budget request. Funding above the request has been realigned from 

Directed Stockpile Work for experimental activities contributing to 

the maturation of concepts and technologies for future insertion opportunities as discussed above. 

Engineering Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$158,571,000, $15,493,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $8,000,000 

above the request. Funding above the request has been realigned 

from Directed Stockpile Work to consolidate funding requested to 

develop surety technologies that are not yet identified with a particular system as discussed above. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign.—The 

Committee recommends $480,000,000, $3,726,000 above fiscal year 

2012 and $20,000,000 above the budget request. Within these 

funds, $62,500,000 shall be for the OMEGA Laser Facility at the 

University of Rochester, $2,250,000 above the request. 

As the first ignition campaign comes to a close in fiscal year 

2012, it is a distinct possibility that the NNSA will not achieve ignition during these initial experiments. While achieving ignition 

was never scientifically assured, the considerable costs will not 

have been warranted if the only role the National Ignition Facility 

(NIF) serves is that of an expensive platform for routine high energy density physics experiments. The Committee continues to support the pursuit of ignition and urges the NNSA to develop a costeffective strategy for future experimental activity as the next phase 

of scientific effort begins. The recommendation supports a lower, 

though still robust, level of experimental activity on the NIF in fiscal year 2013 given the completion of major diagnostic acquisitions 

and the shift in experimental tempo. 

Further, the Committee supports the application of a fair and 

standardized overhead rate that fully adheres to proper cost accounting standards. In previous years, the NNSA allowed Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to apply a reduced overhead 

rate for the operation of the NIF which artificially lowered the 

amount of funding needed within the ICF Campaign to conduct experimental activities, in violation of cost accounting standards. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
117 

This practice misrepresented the full costs of these activities and 

shifted those costs onto other programs at the laboratory. While the 

ultimate programmatic impacts of the rate shift are still not clear, 

there is flexibility within the NNSA budget to partially mitigate 

those consequences as the overhead rate transitions back to a more 

appropriate level. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the NNSA did 

not properly take into account those impacts when developing its 

budget request and the Committee recommends $20,000,000 above 

the request to mitigate any unintended adverse impacts in fiscal 

year 2013. The Committee will continue to work with the NNSA 

to understand the implications of the transition to an appropriate 

overhead rate at the NIF and adjust resources as necessary so the 

facility may effectively execute its mission. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.—The Committee recommends $600,000,000, $20,000,000 below fiscal year 

2012 and the same as the budget request. 

Readiness Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$120,000,000 for the Readiness Campaign, $8,591,000 below fiscal 

year 2012 and $10,095,000 below the budget request. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $2,239,828,000 for Readiness in 

Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF), $230,673,000 above fiscal 

year 2012 and the same as the request. The RTBF program provides funding for the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization 

of NNSA facilities and infrastructure. 

Despite the reductions in the budget request from the previous 

estimates provided for fiscal year 2013, the request proposes substantial increases for modernization of the aging NNSA infrastructure, investments which in many cases are long overdue. In the 

past, the NNSA has failed to adequately fund facility maintenance 

and recapitalization and the significant funding increase over last 

year’s level will be used to address some of these shortfalls. However, the NNSA has done little to improve its accounting for the 

costs of infrastructure, increasing the amounts requested within 

generalized operations funding and failing to identify how it is 

prioritizing projects across the complex. 

The request proposed $166,945,000 under Science, Technology 

and Engineering (ST&E) Capability Support, a vague funding category which appears to create duplicative accounting structures for 

operating costs alongside funding for administrative headquarters 

support and its new Capabilities-Based Facilities and Infrastructure (CBFI) program. The Committee recommends funding for 

CBFI under a new line, Maintenance and Repair of Facilities, in 

order to provide more clarity into the purpose of this funding. The 

recommendation retains funding for administrative and headquarters activities under Program Readiness. Maintenance and Repair of Facilities also includes additional funding requested for 

other major multi-year operating expense recapitalization projects 

that were buried within the request for Operations of Facilities in 

order to better distinguish the cost of routine operational support 

from the costs of modernization. 

Operations of Facilities.—The Committee recommends 

$1,369,403,000 for Operations of Facilities, $83,787,000 above fiscal 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
118 

year 2012 and $50,000,000 below the budget request. The recommendation includes $5,100,000 for the first year of funding for 

the purchase of a major item of equipment, a high resolution computed tomography system for pit scanning at the Pantex Plant. 

Within the amounts provided for Operations of Facilities at Sandia, 

$11,400,000 is provided to operate the Primary Standards Laboratory. The Committee does not support new recapitalization of the 

tritium infrastructure at Savannah River until the NNSA develops 

a clear plan that will ensure the continued availability of tritium 

for the stockpile. 

No funds are provided to enter into any leasing arrangement for 

the purposes of relocating the functions of the NNSA’s Albuquerque 

Service Center Complex, though funding is permitted to investigate 

alternatives for recapitalization. The use of operating leases has 

been investigated by the GAO and found to be cost effective only 

when used for a specified period of time. They are generally not 

suitable for meeting permanent specialized federal space requirements. The NNSA must provide adequate proof of the cost benefits 

and suitability of any major lease for the Albuquerque Service Center before it will support funding. 

Program Readiness.—The Committee recommends $38,000,000 

for Program Readiness, to retain transparent accounting for the 

overhead and headquarters costs of managing the NNSA infrastructure. Funding within Program Readiness is restricted to administrative, planning, headquarters, and training costs and should 

not be used to fund infrastructure projects or other site operating 

costs as in previous years. 

Nuclear Operations Capability Support.—The Committee recommends $203,346,000, combining previously separate funding for 

Material Recycle and Recovery, Containers, and Storage in order to 

provide additional flexibility to meet operational requirements. The 

NNSA is directed to maintain transparency into these activities by 

continuing to report financial and programmatic details according 

to each separate subactivity in its budget request and financial reports. Within this amount, $35,000,000 is provided to commence 

characterization and clean out of the Los Alamos Plutonium Facility vault. 

Science, Technology and Engineering Capability Support.—The 

recommendation provides no funding for Science, Technology and 

Engineering Capability Support, but provides funding for these requested activities separately within Maintenance and Repair of Facilities, Program Readiness, and Operations of Facilities, where appropriate. 

Maintenance and Repair of Facilities.—The Committee recommends $148,266,000. This new funding control supports the Capabilities-Based Facilities and Infrastructure (CBFI) program and 

other major operating expense repair projects. The NNSA is to 

show the full details for each major multi-year project with a total 

project cost of greater than $10,000,000 within its fiscal year 2014 

budget request. The recommendation includes $20,000,000 for 

MESA recapitalization requested under Operations of Facilities for 

Sandia, which is needed for the B61 Life Extension Program and 

which could ultimately cost nearly $100,000,000 to complete. The 

recommendation also includes $5,000,000 to begin replacement of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
119 

lead-in piping at the Device Assembly Facility which is needed to 

provide additional storage options for plutonium due to the delay 

of the CMRR–NF. 

Project 13–D–301, Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends 

$23,000,000 as requested. 

Project 12–D–301, TRU Waste Facilities, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory.—The Committee recommends $24,204,000 as requested. 

Project 11–D–801, TA–55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends $39,568,000, 

$30,679,000 above the request. This additional funding allows the 

NNSA to commence the full scope of the planned upgrades, which 

are overdue investments for improving the safety of the plutonium 

infrastructure at Los Alamos. 

Project 10–D–501, Nuclear Facilities Risk Reduction (NFRR), Y– 

12 National Security Complex.—The Committee recommends 

$17,909,000 as requested. The Committee notes that the NNSA 

continues to fall behind on its commitments to complete overdue 

maintenance on the 9212 building at Y–12 specifically directed by 

this Committee in previous years. Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the NNSA should provide a report on the latest facility condition of 9212, an assessment of the reasons for the 

continued delays in executing the project, actions to be taken to recover the project schedule, and future repairs that may be needed 

that are outside the scope of this project to ensure it can operate 

safely until the construction of the Uranium Processing Facility is 

complete. 

Project 09–D–404, Test Capabilities Revitalization II, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM.—The Committee recommends 

$11,332,000 as requested. 

Project 08–D–802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex 

Plant.—The Committee recommends $24,800,000 as requested. 

Project 06–D–141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12 National 

Security Complex.—The Committee recommends $340,000,000 as 

requested. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the safe, 

secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials, 

and non-nuclear weapon components between military locations 

and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the United States. 

The Committee recommends $219,361,000, $23,915,000 below fiscal 

year 2012 and the same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation does not support the movement of the Human Reliability Program to Other Related Expenses within Program Direction. This requirement for maintaining federal agent qualifications 

is properly funded within the Security/Safety Capability subprogram as in prior years. 

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response (NCTIR) program responds to and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents 

worldwide. The Committee recommends $225,446,000, $3,299,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
120 

above fiscal year 2012 and $22,106,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes $55,000,000 for Nuclear Counterterrorism activities, now under the management of the newly-established Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation (NA– 

80). Many of the development activities under the purview of NA– 

80 are related to radiological materials or pre/post-detonation detection, which are closely linked to technologies under development 

by the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. These critical activities would benefit if the NNSA provided more focus to its strategy for establishing a nuclear forensics capability and eliminated 

duplicative bureaucracies for developing related technologies by integrating NA–80 activities in future years with the request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. Further, NA–80 activities should 

not force out existing technology paths under development by the 

Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, but should work cooperatively with those efforts. 

SITE STEWARDSHIP

The Committee recommends $79,581,000 for Site Stewardship, 

$901,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $10,420,000 below the budget 

request. No funding is provided for the Energy Modernization and 

Investment Program. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

Defense Nuclear Security is responsible for developing and implementing security programs for the protection, control, and accountability of materials and for the physical security of all facilities of 

the nuclear security enterprise. The Committee recommends 

$663,285,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, $22,967,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $20,000,000 above the request. While efforts to 

reduce costs are encouraged, the NNSA has not performed a new 

multi-site security assessment that would justify the five percent 

reduction in protective forces proposed in the budget request and 

it is not clear how those proposed reductions would impact the security posture of NNSA facilities. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND SECURITY

Information Technology and Security combines funding for Cyber 

Security with funding for unclassified information technology programs, previously funded under the Office of the Administrator. 

Combined funding was requested within the budget request under 

a new program line, NNSA CIO Activities, which has been renamed to more clearly describe the activities to be funded. The 

Committee recommends $160,018,000 for Information Technology 

and Security, $4,996,000 above the request, in order to restore 

funding for Technology Application Development to the fiscal year 

2012 level. Given the increasing cyber threats confronting the 

NNSA, continuing to invest in emerging technologies is a necessary 

component of any layered cyber security strategy. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
121 

LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS

The Committee provides $185,000,000 for payments into the legacy University of California contractor employee defined benefit 

pension plans. 

NATIONAL SECURITY APPLICATIONS

The Committee recommends no funding for National Security 

Applications. Funding requested to develop radiation sources for 

detection of nuclear material, improving standoff detection of special nuclear materials, and investigation of electromagnetic pulse 

and radio frequency signatures in support of the Comprehensive 

Test Ban Treaty are nonproliferation-related activities. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Rescission.—The Committee rescinds $65,000,000 in prior-year 

balances from the Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement 

Project-Nuclear Facility. Given the NNSA has announced a fiveyear delay in constructing the Nuclear Facility project and there is 

still no revised plutonium strategy which would make use of the 

considerable prior-year balances, a portion of these funds are available to offset funding needs for Los Alamos infrastructure in fiscal 

year 2013 as described above. Specifically, $30,00,000 is needed to 

accelerate the completion of safety-related infrastructure improvements needed at the existing Los Alamos Plutonium Facility–4 

(PF–4) under the TA–55 Reinvestment Project and $35,000,000 is 

needed to begin characterization and cleanout of the PF–4 vault 

under Material Recycle Recovery. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $2,295,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 2,458,631,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 2,276,024,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥19,856,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥182,607,000 

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes funding 

for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development; 

Nonproliferation and International Security; International Nuclear 

Material Protection and Cooperation; Fissile Materials Disposition; 

and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is 

$2,276,024,000, $19,856,000 below fiscal year 2012 and 

$182,607,000 below the budget request. After accounting for rescissions totaling $28,423,000 in fiscal year 2012 and the rescission of 

$7,000,000 in this bill, the recommendation is $41,279,000 below 

fiscal year 2012. 

The recommendation fully funds the requested level for core nonproliferation activities, including the four-year plan to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world. The recommendation 

for the remaining non-core activities, which includes Fissile Materials Disposition and Domestic Uranium Enrichment Research Development and Demonstration, are reduced from the request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
122 

The request for the four-year plan continues to decrease as 

planned, showing progress from the accelerated investments made 

over the past two years. However, the request proposes further reductions that were not previously envisioned, causing some strategies to appear uncoordinated. In the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, 

the Administration recommended enhancing national and international capabilities to disrupt illicit proliferation networks and expanding our nuclear forensics efforts to improve the ability to identify the source of nuclear material used or intended for use in a terrorist nuclear explosive device. The NNSA is now proposing a 

‘‘strategic pause’’ for the Second Line of Defense program, which installs radiation equipment at borders, airports, and ports, while it 

considers the future of the program. This decision appears to be 

driven primarily by budgetary constraints and the Administration’s 

inclusion of a uranium enrichment program within the nonproliferation account. Further, the request proposes funding for nuclear forensics across a variety of programs, instead of integrating 

those efforts into ongoing nonproliferation activities. 

While the Committee agrees that the models for executing some 

of its core nonproliferation programmatic activities should be reviewed for effectiveness, there are substantial concerns regarding 

the NNSA’s ability to evaluate and provide meaningful reports on 

its own program performance. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently investigated program management within the 

Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) and found several problems with its use of performance measures. The GAO reported that the results of some DNN programs appear overstated 

because DNN measured performance against different targets at 

the end of year than the ones presented in the budget request. It 

also investigated the way DNN reports budget execution performance and found the levels of uncommitted balances frequently exceeded thresholds, but the semiannual reports to Congress on uncommitted balances do not specify the amounts by which program 

balances exceeded the thresholds or explain why the excess balances should not be rescinded, redirected, or used to offset future 

budget requests. Without measures and reports which would accurately track performance, there is limited information available for 

evaluating and revising programmatic strategies. 

Within the amounts provided, the Committee directs the NNSA 

to contract with an independent entity with recognized expertise in 

evaluating program effectiveness for a review of DNN performance 

measures and uncommitted balances report. The entity shall submit a report to the Committee with its findings and recommendations on developing more accurate and meaningful measures of program performance and reports on financial balances. 

In the meantime, the Committee notes that the program has 

made progress in reducing unobligated balances and should proceed with further improvements to program justification and 

metrics. The Committee is aware that the program uses and tracks 

additional metrics in some core programs which may be valuable 

to decision makers when weighing the merits of resource allocations. The NNSA is directed to expand its metrics in future budget 

requests to provide additional background on the effectiveness on 

its programs. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
123 

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development 

program conducts applied research, development, testing, and evaluation of science and technology for strengthening the United 

States response to threats to national security posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. The 

Committee recommends $528,186,000 for Nonproliferation and 

Verification Research and Development, $172,036,000 above fiscal 

year 2012 and $20,000,000 below the request. 

The recommendation includes $100,000,000 to support the start 

of a national security-related domestic uranium enrichment technology development program, $50,000,000 below the request. The 

Committee notes that in fiscal year 2012, the Department made 

$44,000,000 available to support this program through a uranium 

procurement arrangement, and can make available an additional 

$82,000,000 to the effort through further liability assumption arrangements. The Committee remains concerned about the Department’s management of enriched uranium and other strategic materials and the recommendation is a strong indication of the Committee’s support for a domestic uranium enrichment capability to meet 

this nation’s defense needs. 

However, due to the rampant cost growth that has been reported 

to construct and operate the MOX facility, the remaining funding 

available within this account is highly constrained and the amount 

has been reduced from the request. If the NNSA is unable to contain the escalating costs of the ongoing MOX project, funding for 

other priorities, such as the uranium enrichment project, will be severely limited. The Committee will continue to evaluate the funding needs of the uranium enrichment program as more details become available. Similarly, the Committee will consider whether additional steps, including legislation, are necessary to protect the 

taxpayers’ investments in this program. 

The recommendation includes $10,000,000 above the request for 

Proliferation Detection, to accelerate development of new technology for nuclear detector materials and performance research 

that will improve options available for Second Line of Defense activities. The recommendation also includes $20,000,000 above the 

request for Nuclear Detonation Detection, for infrastructure investments which will enhance nonproliferation efforts and provide additional capabilities, such as those needed for pre- and post-detonation nuclear forensics. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $134,459,000 for Nonproliferation and International Security, $15,660,000 below the request. No funding is provided for the new Global Security through 

Science Partnerships program. The authorization for the Global 

Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program (GIPP) ends in fiscal year 2012 and funding for this follow-on revamped program has 

not been authorized. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
124 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 

(INMPC) program works cooperatively with partner countries to secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material in order to improve the physical security at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable materials that are of 

proliferation concern. The Committee recommends $311,000,000 for 

INMPC activities, the same as the request. 

While the NNSA conducts its activities to assess and define Second Line of Defense requirements for the most effective deployments of equipment likely to achieve the greatest threat reduction, 

it should review all available options, develop the optimal mix of 

equipment and approach, and merge the Core and Megaports program into one comprehensive, aligned strategy. The Committee 

supports this review and encourages the NNSA to closely coordinate its findings and recommendations with the Committee. Further, the Committee expects the process to include subject matter 

experts outside the NNSA to ensure that the Second Line of Defense program emerges from this review with a strong and justifiable basis for future funding. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD) program consists of 

major construction projects, blend-down of surplus U.S. highly enriched uranium, and the Russian Plutonium Disposition program. 

The Committee recommendation provides $764,698,000 for fissile 

materials disposition activities, $79,312,000 above fiscal year 2012 

and $156,607,000 below the budget request. Even though the Pit 

Disassembly and Conversion Facility has been cancelled, the FMD 

program costs are projected at approximately $1,000,000,000 per 

year over the next several years in order to maintain the current 

schedule for operations. The recommendation fully funds ongoing 

construction, but delays funding for the Mixed Oxide (MOX) facility 

early startup options until the actual costs and schedule for completing and operating the MOX facility are better known. The recommendation fully supports MOX early feedstock activities at HCanyon and Los Alamos, but delays the long term investments that 

will be needed to support full operations until the planning process 

is complete and the full costs are provided to the Committee. 

The U.S. Plutonium Disposition program was created to dispose 

of at least 34 metric tons of surplus weapons-usable plutonium by 

fabricating it into mixed oxide fuel for use in civilian nuclear reactors. There is still no fidelity on the total project costs and timeline 

to get the MOX facility up and running, and few details have been 

provided on the long term investments that will be needed to support full operating feedstock requirements. Construction continues 

to slip behind schedule due to unanticipated complexity of the 

work, poor contractor performance, delays in procurements, and the 

inclusion of additional work scope. The Department is now reporting internally that the total project costs could be understated by 

as much as $600,000,000 to $900,000,000, and that the project will 

overrun its projected completion date by months if not years. Further, the updated cost estimates provided by the NNSA for the proVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
125 

jected annual operating costs of the MOX facility have skyrocketed 

and are now 2.5 times the projections of just two years ago. The 

source of this cost growth is still not entirely clear, but according 

to information provided to the Committee by the NNSA, part of the 

growth is due to cost estimating errors such as not accounting for 

normal escalation factors. 

Due to the considerable issues surrounding the current estimates, the Committee directs the Comptroller General to investigate the existing cost estimates for completing construction, performing cold and hot startup activities, and annual facility operations. The Comptroller General is directed to report to the Committee with an assessment of the extent to which current NNSA 

estimates provide an accurate representation of the costs and time 

to complete the facility and whether those estimates adhere to good 

federal cost estimating standards. 

U.S. Plutonium Disposition.—The Committee provides $346,160,000, $140,528,000 above fiscal year 2012 and 

$152,819,000 below the budget request. 

MOX Irradiation, Feedstock and Transportation.—The Committee provides $152,910,000, $65,943,000 above fiscal year 2012 

and $77,200,000 below the budget request. This amount includes 

increased funding to establish full production capabilities for early 

feed at Los Alamos and H-Canyon. However, it does not provide 

the $27,200,000 requested to expand ARIES to provide steady state 

feed capabilities, since those investments are premature without an 

adequate understanding of the total cost and schedule to complete 

the entire scope of work. The recommendation also does not provide 

the $50,000,000 requested to modify the MOX facility for feedstock 

production. The costs to modify the facility for additional scope 

should be fully captured in the MOX total project costs during rebaselining for the project. Further, the Environmental Impact 

Statement required for these investments is not scheduled to be 

complete prior to fiscal year 2014. The Committee will not support 

funding to modify the MOX facility until the NNSA has rebaselined 

the project to account for the additional costs and schedule implications of the delays, performance issues, and additional scope. The 

Committee supports the work to begin qualification of MOX fuel 

designs by multiple potential users and provides $52,400,000 for 

those activities, as requested. 

MOX Other Project Costs.—The Committee provides 

$133,426,000, $86,391,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $47,243,000 

below the budget request. In light of the considerable challenges 

that must be overcome to complete construction, it is premature to 

embark upon an aggressive startup plan in fiscal year 2013. The 

Committee is also concerned about the high costs of the plans to 

startup the facility and directs the NNSA to aggressively develop 

options to reduce expenses and better integrate startup plans with 

the anticipated timelines for construction completion. The Department will already incur operating costs of $50,000,000 per year to 

maintain the Waste Solidification Building in standby, since this 

supporting facility is not yet needed. Ramping up startup before 

there is a clear timeline for completing construction will result in 

further misalignments, adding on carrying costs for personnel who 

are not yet needed. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
126 

MOX Operating Expenses.—The Committee provides $100,000, the same as fiscal year 2012 and $28,376,000 below the budget request. Given that MOX facility construction must be rebaselined, 

the Committee will not support initiation of funding for operating 

expenses until the capitalized and non-capitalized operating costs 

are clearly defined against the original project baseline so that the 

entire scope for startup may be accurately presented. 

Waste Solidification Building Other Project Costs.—The Committee provides $25,798,000 as requested. 

Waste Solidification Building Operating Expenses.—The Committee provides $18,541,000 as requested. Funding provides for operating costs incurred following the award of the project’s CD–4 

milestone for construction completion. 

Plutonium Disposition Integration.—The Committee provides $15,385,000 as requested. Given the completion of the Waste Solidification Building and the cancellation of the Pit Disassembly 

and Conversion Facility, there will no longer be a need for funding 

which integrates planning for these two projects with the MOX facility, yet the budget request includes $114,876,000 in the out-year 

estimates. The NNSA is directed to reevaluate the allocation of 

overhead and planning costs for fissile materials disposition in future years. 

U.S. Uranium Disposition.—The Committee recommends 

$29,736,000 as requested. 

Project 99–D–143, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River, SC.—The Committee recommends $388,802,000 as requested. The amount requested for construction is considerably 

higher than the NNSA projected it would need last year, when the 

funding estimate for construction for fiscal year 2013 was only 

$322,802,000. After the NNSA used its authority under the Continuing Resolution in fiscal year 2011 to increase funding by 

$26,000,000, an increase of $50,000,000 provided by the Committee 

in fiscal year 2012, and the additional $66,000,000 in this bill, a 

total of $142,000,000 has been provided over the performance baseline to meet rising capital costs. As noted above, if the NNSA is unable to contain the escalating costs of ongoing work, the Committee’s flexibility to meet other programmatic needs within Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation will be severely limited. 

Russian Surplus Materials Disposition.—The Committee recommends no additional funding, as significant prior year balances 

remain to support activities planned in fiscal year 2013. 

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) mission is to identify, secure, remove, and facilitate the disposition of high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and equipment around 

the world. The Committee recommends $482,681,000 for GTRI activities, $16,660,000 above the request, to meet the four-year goal 

to secure vulnerable nuclear materials. 

Domestic Radiological Material Protection.—The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for Domestic Radiological Material Protection, $15,021,000 below the budget request. The NNSA reports it 

had spent $96,000,000 installing security enhancements for radiological materials at 302 domestic facilities through December 2011. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
127 

In a recent GAO report on actions needed to secure vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials, the GAO describes inconsistent 

regulation and severe gaps in the security of domestic radiological 

materials. It also reported the NNSA’s estimate to secure the remaining domestic facilities it has identified with high-priority radiological material is $600,000,000, and that security upgrades at the 

scope envisioned would not be completed until 2025. 

With long timelines, unclear costs, and unsecured materials, the 

NNSA needs to improve its strategy for securing domestic radiological materials, including the possibility of reconsidering the services it provides to industry. The Committee is particularly concerned with the NNSA’s ability to respond to concerns from stakeholders. Some hospital officials and police department personnel 

have declined the NNSA’s proposed upgrades due to the program’s 

requirements. The NNSA should improve the way it incorporates 

feedback from stakeholders in choosing upgrades, such as concerns 

about the potential financial burden placed on licensees to maintain upgrades beyond the 3- to 5-year warranty period. There are 

also various services the NNSA could provide for accessing federal 

funds that might provide more flexibility for licensees to invest in 

more sustainable, lower cost security upgrades which would not 

pass high federal, management and operations contractor, and subcontractor overhead costs onto the taxpayer. By providing lower 

cost services and more options, the number of facilities to be secured can be increased and the timeline for securing materials can 

be accelerated. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Rescission.—The recommendation rescinds $7,000,000 of prioryear balances from U.S. Plutonium Disposition due to the cancellation of the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $1,080,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 1,088,635,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,086,635,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +6,635,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥2,000,000 

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of 

naval nuclear propulsion from technology development through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. The 

Committee recommendation provides $1,086,635,000 for Naval Reactors, $6,635,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $2,000,000 below the 

budget request. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request fully adheres to the Committee’s requirements to identify separate funding for the OHIO-Replacement Reactor Systems Development and the S8G Prototype 

Refueling, and the Committee continues to provide funding separately for these high-priority activities. 

The multi-year funding estimates for the development of the 

OHIO-Replacement and the S8G Prototype Refueling have not been 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
128 

provided in the budget request. Given this uncertainty in the outyears, the Committee remains concerned that a credible and affordable path forward has not been developed which would ensure that 

fiscal constraints will not adversely impact the operating fleet. The 

Committee directs the NNSA to provide an update of its out-year 

estimates for Naval Reactors concurrently with its update of outyear estimates for Weapons Activities. 

Given the uncertainty of out-year funding requirements for the 

OHIO-Replacement and S8G Prototype, the plans for infrastructure 

recapitalization have become even more opaque. Last year, the 

budget request included increases to recapitalize the spent fuel infrastructure at Idaho, but there is little mention of the status of 

planning for that activity in the fiscal year 2013 request. With infrastructure needs projected to grow, the Committee supports the 

full investigation of alternatives that might present less expensive 

options for consideration. The recommendation supports initiation 

of two new construction projects, but holds back the start of a third 

project and directs the investigation of other alternatives which 

might be more affordable. The delayed project would demolish approximately 2,500 square feet of existing radiological work and 

storage space at the Kesselring Site and replace it with a new permanent 10,000 square foot facility in order to accommodate peak 

space needs during the planned refueling and defueling activities 

which begin in fiscal year 2018. There is sufficient time to evaluate 

other options which could accommodate the temporary increase in 

activity at a lower cost, such as the reassignment of existing space 

or a temporary structure. Subsequent new construction may then 

only be needed to support the enduring mission of the site. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $410,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 411,279,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 400,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥11,279,000 

The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and oversight 

for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and 

Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field offices in New Mexico, 

Nevada, and California. The Committee recommendation is 

$400,000,000, $10,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $11,279,000 

below the budget request. 

Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program.—The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount of 

$14,800,000 within Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors to engage Minority Serving Institutions. This year, the funding for the Massie Chairs is requested 

in the newly constituted Minority Serving Institution Partnership 

Program (MSIPP). The Committee fully expects that the MSIPP 

will continue to support programs that improve science, technology, 

engineering, and math (STEM) workforce diversity and will provide 

updates on the progress of any new partnership activities. Harnessing scientific and technological ingenuity has long been at the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
129 

core of America’s prosperity, and the Committee strongly encourages the NNSA to maintain this commitment by engaging in competitions supporting programs that increase the number of underrepresented college minorities in STEM fields. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $5,002,950,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 5,009,001,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 4,920,078,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥82,872,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥88,923,000 

The Defense Environmental Management (EM) program is responsible for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at 

sites where the nation carried out defense-related nuclear research 

and production activities that resulted in radioactive, hazardous, 

and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or some other cleanup action. The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental Cleanup is $4,920,078,000, 

$82,872,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $88,923,000 below the 

budget request. After accounting for a rescission of $20,050,000 in 

fiscal year 2012 and the rescission of $10,000,000 in this bill, the 

recommendation is $92,922,000 below fiscal year 2012. The recommendation includes no funding for a federal contribution into 

the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund. 

Impacts of Funding Reductions.—While the cleanup activities 

funded under this account are strongly supported by the Committee, the overall funding levels for cleanup will continue to be 

constrained. The Committee is concerned by the Department’s overall approach to formulating its budget request under these fiscal 

constraints, concentrating steep reductions at a few sites without 

a clear description of the workforce and operational impacts. While 

tough choices may need to be made, EM is responsible for understanding the full impacts of the funding levels it proposes and communicating those impacts so they may be fully considered by the 

Congress. 

Status of Agreements with States and Communities.—While existing agreements may have been negotiated in good faith, many 

depended on highly optimistic funding increases that would have 

been difficult in any budget environment. In total, these agreements would require spending levels for environmental cleanup of 

more than $8 billion during peak years, not taking into account the 

impacts of technical and management challenges that have driven 

up costs for some activities. Set back by project management failures and propelled forward by an infusion of $6 billion from the Recovery Act, the status of the cleanup effort has now changed significantly. The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to update its estimates for completing the cleanup and to provide an accurate accounting to all stakeholders so that a clear, affordable, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
130 

and attainable path forward can be negotiated at those sites where 

the current schedule for cleanup will not be met. 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP).—The Committee notes progress with the WTP project and is encouraged that 

the Department is moving forward constructively in its response to 

the safety and technical issues. The recommendation for the Office 

of River Protection includes requested funding to begin a series of 

large-scale vessel tests which will provide the needed data for establishment of the ultimate operating parameters and safety basis 

for the facility. While the results of the large scale vessel testing 

are still many years away, the outstanding technical issues suggest 

the amount of waste that can be safely processed with the existing 

plant design could be less than originally envisioned. 

The Department has also recently approved a new project execution plan for the plant which makes necessary changes to the 

project organization. The Committee supports sequencing construction completion milestones to optimize the startup strategy and 

begin processing lower level waste. As a result, the recommendation includes new funding controls according to the phases for 

project completion which will permit better tracking of progress 

against the performance baseline for the first and second phases. 

While the Committee supports the revisions to the project execution plan, moving forward with lower level activities does not supplant the Department’s responsibility to establish a clear path forward for completing the High Level Waste and Pretreatment Facilities. 

The Committee expects the Department to expeditiously rebaseline each of the two phases in accordance with DOE project management guidelines. In addition, current plans for revising the 

project baseline involve removing hot commissioning work scope 

that is currently capitalized as part of the WTP and shifting those 

costs to operating expense funds, which will then be needed earlier 

than previously planned. The Department is directed to clearly account for the total costs of all work scope removed from the capitalized project during its rebaselining. The Committee expects the Department to adhere to the semi-annual reporting requirements for 

the WTP project that was directed by the Committee in the fiscal 

year 2012 report. 

Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU).—The Committee remains concerned about the status of cleanup activities at SPRU. 

The requested level of funding does not allow the Department to 

resume cleanup activities in fiscal year 2013 since the estimated 

costs to complete the project, including the allocation of costs between the Department and the contractor, have still not been resolved. The Committee supports prompt resolution of the issues 

surrounding this project and the resumption of cleanup activities 

as soon as possible. 

Spent Fuel Storage.—The Committee is concerned that the Department has not adequately planned for the extended storage of 

spent nuclear fuel. Further, no information has been provided on 

how the cancellation of Yucca Mountain will impact settlement 

agreements for storage of Department of Energy spent fuel. Not 

later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the Department is 

directed to provide a report on the current status and long term 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
131 

storage requirements for extended spent fuel and high level waste 

storage for the National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommends $1,990,000 as requested. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommends $953,252,000, the 

same as fiscal year 2012 and $10,071,000 below the budget request. 

Within this amount, the recommendation fully funds the amount 

requested to remediate the River Corridor in order to keep those 

activities on track for closure in 2015. However, the increases requested to ramp up cleanup of the Plutonium Finishing Plant 

(PFP) within the Central Plateau Remediation are not executable 

and therefore not included in the recommendation. As one of its 

most challenging cleanup projects, the Department must ensure 

the work schedule does not endanger workers. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends 

$399,607,000 as requested. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommends $312,369,000, 

$21,899,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, the 

Committee recommends $1,484,000 for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, $4,230,000 for the NNSA Service Center, 

$24,000,000 for the Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU), 

$64,641,000 for the Nevada Test Site, $3,014,000 for Sandia National Laboratories, and $215,000,000 for Los Alamos National 

Laboratory. Within the amounts provided, $97,015,000 is recommended for 

solid waste stabilization and disposition at Los Alamos, an increase 

of $30,000,000, or 45 percent, over the fiscal year 2012 level. As the 

largest site increase for environmental cleanup, the recommendation reflects the Committee’s support of accelerating the transfer of 

legacy TRU waste at Los Alamos due to growing concerns about 

the vulnerability of this material. DOE has recently agreed to 

speed up the disposition of this material, but has yet to renegotiate 

the consent order which would formalize milestones and commitments for cleanup. Until the Committee understands the full scope 

and cost of the project, the recommendation provides funding for 

soil and groundwater cleanup at the fiscal year 2012 level. The 

Committee supports expeditious renegotiation of the consent order 

which would formalize and prioritize the concerns of all stakeholders within an affordable and achievable plan for cleanup. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$179,495,000, $2,000,000 below the budget request. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$1,163,000,000, $9,113,000 below the budget request. 

Tank Farm Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$473,000,000 for Tank Farm Activities, $28,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2012 and $9,113,000 below the budget request. The recommendation includes $18,000,000 to support testing of the tank 

farms mixing, sampling, and transfer functions in order to assist 

in the resolution of outstanding nuclear safety concerns surrounding the design of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant. 

Project 01–D–16 A–C, Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant.—The Committee recommends $350,000,000, the same as the 

request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
132 

Project 01–D–16 D–E, High Level Waste and Pretreatment Facilities, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.—The Committee 

recommends $340,000,000, the same as the request. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,148,583,000, $32,933,000 below the budget request. The level 

recommended reflects an increase of $10,280,000 above the fiscal 

year 2012 level for tank farm activities to ensure continued 

progress on the tank closure schedule. However, the continued 

delays in the construction of the Salt Waste Processing Facility 

may now significantly impact the amount of funding that will be 

needed to complete construction. Since it is unlikely overall site 

funding levels will increase significantly in the near future, the Department must work constructively with its stakeholders to 

reprioritize near term cleanup goals if large cost overruns emerge. 

The recommendation also supports substantial increases to material stabilization and disposition to commence shipping plutonium 

out of the state. 

Project 05–D–405, Salt Waste Processing Facility, Savannah 

River.—The Committee recommends $22,549,000 as requested. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The Committee recommends 

$203,000,000, $4,990,000 above the request. While some savings 

may be available for transportation services due to management reforms, it is unlikely the level of savings claimed are available and 

the requested level would adversely impact commitments for shipping waste from other DOE sites. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $315,607,000, 

$7,897,000 below the budget request. Prior-year balances for Program Direction continue to increase and the Department should 

first expend these balances before requesting further increases. 

Program Support.—The Committee recommends $18,279,000 as 

requested. 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommends 

$237,019,000, the same as the request. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Technology Development and Deployment, $10,000,000 below the request. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Use of Prior-Year Balances.—As requested, the Committee directs the use of $12,123,000 in prior-year balances to meet fiscal 

year 2013 needs as described above. 

Rescission.—The Committee rescinds $10,000,000 in prior-year 

unobligated balances. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $823,364,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 735,702,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 813,364,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +77,662,000 

This account provides funding for the Office of Health, Safety 

and Security, Office of Legacy Management, Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security, Defense Related Administrative Support, and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
133 

the Office of Hearings and Appeals. The Committee recommendation for Other Defense Activities (ODA) is $813,364,000, 

$10,000,000 below fiscal year 2012 and $77,662,000 above the 

budget request. The increase above the request is due to funding 

Defense-Related Activities at Idaho National Laboratory in this account as it has been funded previously, rather than within Nuclear 

Energy, as requested. 

HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY

The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) develops programs and policies to protect the workers at the Department’s sites 

and facilities and the public, conducts independent oversight of performance and security, and integrates health, safety, and security 

policies across the Department, among other related functions. The 

Committee recommends $241,097,000 for the Office of Health, 

Safety and Security, $4,403,000 below the request. The recommendation also provides $188,000,000 for Specialized Security 

Activities, $619,000 below the request. The Committee believes 

that having an independent assessment capability at the Department is important and supports the role of HSS in the areas of nuclear safety, worker safety and health, safeguards and security, 

cyber security and emergency management. The Committee agrees 

that the responsibility for protecting workers, the public, the environment, and national security assets rests with the Department’s 

line management organizations. However, it is critical that the Department preserve the HSS authority to independently assess Departmental compliance and performance and to have access to and 

cooperation from all Departmental programs. 

OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Office of Legacy Management (LM) provides long-term stewardship following site closure. The Committee recommends 

$173,946,000 for Legacy Management, $4,346,000 above fiscal year 

2012 and $4,000,000 below the request. The Committee notes that 

sufficient prior-year unobligated balances are available to offset LM 

activities and program direction needs during fiscal year 2013. 

IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation includes $93,350,000 to fund 

Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security, the same as fiscal year 

2012 and $1,650,000 below the request. The recommendation includes this funding within ODA, as in prior years, rather than 

within Nuclear Energy as requested. 

DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $112,170,000, 

$6,666,000 below fiscal year 2012 and the request, to provide administrative support for programs funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. The Committee notes that the request for 

funding is poorly justified and does not adequately explain how the 

Department’s administrative costs are being allocated to Other Defense Activities. Given the fact that these costs apply primarily to 

Defense Environmental Cleanup and the level requested for deVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
134 

fense cleanup is decreasing, the administrative support offset 

should also be decreasing. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Office of Hearings and Appeals is responsible for all of the 

Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommendation is $4,801,000, $659,000 above fiscal year 

2012 and the same as the request. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 

Management of the federal power marketing functions was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of 

Energy in the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 

(P.L. 95–91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 

and all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the 

Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of 

Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power 

Administration. 

All four power marketing administrations give preference in the 

sale of their power to publicly-owned and cooperatively-owned utilities. Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are financed principally under the authority of the Federal Columbia 

River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the 

Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues 

to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance 

any additional capital program requirements. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2011, power revenues from the Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations, 

which were previously classified as mandatory offsetting receipts, 

were reclassified as discretionary offsetting collections to directly 

offset annual expenses. The capital expenses of Southwestern and 

Western Area Power Administrations are appropriated annually. 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest. 

Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service 

area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the 

power from federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well 

as power from non-federal generating facilities in the region, and 

exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada and California. 

Language is included to allow expenditures from the Bonneville 

Power Administration Fund for John Day Reprogramming and 

Construction, Columbia River Basin White Sturgeon Hatchery, and 

Kelt Reconditioning and Reproductive Success Evaluation Research. Expenditure authority also is provided for construction or 

participation in the construction of a high voltage line from Bonneville’s high voltage system to the service areas of requirements customers located within Bonneville’s service area in southern Idaho, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
135 

southern Montana, and western Wyoming; such line may extend to, 

and interconnect in, the Pacific Northwest with lines between the 

Pacific Northwest and the Pacific Southwest. The Committee is 

aware that Bonneville currently is evaluating alternatives for providing service to these customers with a goal of finalizing a decision by September 30, 2012. The Committee directs Bonneville to 

notify the Committee of key milestones of this evaluation process 

as well as the details of the final plan once an alternative has been 

selected. 

The Committee notes that on March 16, 2012, the Secretary of 

Energy issued a memorandum instructing the Power Marketing 

Administrations to modernize their operations. This proposal has 

not been communicated fully to the Congress and little information 

is available regarding the potential impact this initiative may have 

on electricity prices. The Committee directs each Power Marketing 

Administration to report to the Committee any direction provided 

by the Secretary with an analysis of the costs of complying with 

such direction, including additional costs to electricity consumers. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... ............................

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) markets hydroelectric power produced at 22 Army Corps of Engineers Projects in 

11 states in the southeast. Southeastern does not own or operate 

any transmission facilities, so it contracts to ‘‘wheel’’ its power 

using the existing transmission facilities of area utilities. 

The total program level for SEPA in fiscal year 2013 is 

$111,902,000, with $103,170,000 for purchase power and wheeling 

and $8,732,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 

wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $87,696,000, and annual expenses will be offset by collections of $8,732,000 provided in 

this Act. Additionally, SEPA has identified $15,474,000 in alternative financing for purchase power and wheeling. The net appropriation, therefore, is $0 in the recommendation and the budget request. 

The Committee notes that on March 16, 2012, the Secretary of 

Energy issued a memorandum instructing the Power Marketing 

Administrations to modernize their operations. This proposal has 

not been communicated fully to the Congress and little information 

is available regarding the potential impact this initiative may have 

on electricity prices. The Committee directs each Power Marketing 

Administration to report to the Committee any direction provided 

by the Secretary with an analysis of the costs of complying with 

such direction, including additional costs to electricity consumers. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
136 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $11,892,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 11,892,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 11,892,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) markets hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects in the 

six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. SWPA operates and maintains 1,380 miles of 

transmission lines, along with supporting substations and communications sites. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is a net appropriation of $11,892,000, the same as the 

budget request. The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal 

year 2012 is $99,029,000, including $11,505,000 for operation and 

maintenance expenses, $51,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $28,593,000 for program direction, and $7,931,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total $73,308,000, including $41,000,000 

for purchase power and wheeling, $26,822,000 for program direction, and $5,486,000 for operations and maintenance. Southwestern 

estimates it will secure alternative financing from customers in the 

amount of $13,829,000. 

The Committee notes that on March 16, 2012, the Secretary of 

Energy issued a memorandum instructing the Power Marketing 

Administrations to modernize their operations. This proposal has 

not been communicated fully to the Congress and little information 

is available regarding the potential impact this initiative may have 

on electricity prices. The Committee directs each Power Marketing 

Administration to report to the Committee any direction provided 

by the Secretary with an analysis of the costs of complying with 

such direction, including additional costs to electricity consumers. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $95,968,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 96,130,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 96,130,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +162,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of 

transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long. Western provides electricity to 15 western states over a service area of 1.3 million square 

miles. 

The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is a net appropriation of $96,130,000, the same as the 

budget request. The total program level for Western in fiscal year 

2013 is $785,157,000, which includes $83,475,000 for construction 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
137 

and rehabilitation, $71,855,000 for system operation and maintenance, $422,225,000 for purchase power and wheeling, 

$204,227,000 for program direction, and $3,375,000 for the Utah 

Mitigation and Conservation Fund. 

Offsetting collections include $438,648,000 for purchase power 

and wheeling and annual expenses, and the use of $5,099,000 of 

offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381). Western Area estimates it will secure alternative financing from customers in the amount of $245,280,000. 

The Committee notes that on March 16, 2012, the Secretary of 

Energy issued a memorandum instructing the Power Marketing 

Administrations to modernize their operations. This proposal has 

not been communicated fully to the Congress and little information 

is available regarding the potential impact this initiative may have 

on electricity prices. The Committee directs each Power Marketing 

Administration to report to the Committee any direction provided 

by the Secretary with an analysis of the costs of complying with 

such direction, including additional costs to electricity consumers. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $220,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 220,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 220,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 

projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these two dams 

is sold to public utilities through the Western Area Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 

1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 

Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of operation, maintenance, 

and emergency activities. The Fund is administered by the Western 

Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the 

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. 

The Committee recommendation is a net appropriation of 

$220,000, the same as the budget request. The total program level 

is $5,555,000, with $5,335,000 of offsetting collections applied toward annual expenses. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $304,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 304,600,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 304,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
138 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $¥304,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... ¥304,600,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥304,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regu- latory Commission (FERC) is $304,600,000, the same as fiscal year 

2012 and the budget request. Revenues for FERC are established 

at a rate equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0. 

The Committee has heard concerns that current FERC processes 

act as disincentives to the installation of pipeline equipment and 

upgrades that can save money and reduce air emissions. The Committee encourages FERC to review these processes to see if any 

changes are advisable and to report the findings of the review to 

the appropriate committees of Congress. 

The Committee is aware that concerns remain about the degree 

of consideration given by FERC to the rights and concerns of private property owners during the process for developing, reviewing, 

and approving shoreline management plans. The Committee reiterates its support for the expeditious development and implementation of innovative and mutually agreeable solutions to resolve conflicts among project purposes and private property at specific locations. The Committee also expects FERC to complete as soon as 

possible its review of the overall shoreline management plan process and report to Congress, as directed in fiscal year 2012. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
139 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 010 here HR462.002
140 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 011 here HR462.003
141 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 012 here HR462.004
142 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 013 here HR462.005
143 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 014 here HR462.006
144 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 01 here HR462.007
145 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 016 here HR462.008
146 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 017 here HR462.009
147 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 018 here HR462.010
148 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 019 here HR462.011
149 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 020 here HR462.012
150 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 021 here HR462.013
151 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 022 here HR462.014
152 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 023 here HR462.015
153 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 024 here HR462.016
154 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 025 here HR462.017
155 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 026 here HR462.018
156 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 027 here HR462.019
157 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 028 here HR462.020
158 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 029 here HR462.021
159 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 030 here HR462.022
160 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 02 here HR462.023
161 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 002 here HR462.024
162 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 003 here HR462.025
163 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 004 here HR462.026
164 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 005 here HR462.027
165 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 006 here HR462.028
166 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 03 here HR462.029
167 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 008 here HR462.030
168 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this title to initiate requests for proposals, other solicitations or arrangements, for new programs or activities that have not 

yet been approved and funded by the Congress; prohibits funds to 

be used for multi-year ‘‘Energy Programs’’ activities without notification; and prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds provided in this title through a reprogramming of funds in this title 

except in certain circumstances. 

The bill continues a provision that permits the transfer and 

merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

The bill continues a provision that authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 504 of the 

National Security Act of 1947. 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds in 

this title for capital construction of high hazard nuclear facilities, 

unless certain independent oversight is conducted. 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this title to approve critical decision–2 or critical decision– 

3 for certain construction projects, unless a separate independent 

cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision. 

The bill continues a provision that establishes certain notification 

requirements that must be fulfilled before any funds in this title 

may be used to make certain awards, allocations, agreements, or 

public announcements. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds to pay the salaries of employees to carry out section 407 of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The bill includes a provision that revises certain reporting requirements related to the GAO. 

The bill includes a provision requiring a plan for enriched uranium. 

The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds for uranium transactions that do not conform to the excess uranium inventory management plan. 

The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds to promulgate or 

implement a rule pursuant to section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

The bill includes a provision that prohibits implementation of a 

memo from the Secretary of Energy to the Power Marketing Administrators dated March 16, 2012. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
169 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $68,263,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 64,850,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 75,317,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +7,054,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +10,467,000 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965 by the Appalachian 

Regional Development Act (Public Law 89–4). It is comprised of the 

governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a federal co-chair appointed by the President. Each year, the ARC provides funding for 

several hundred projects in the Appalachian Region in areas such 

as business development, education and job training, telecommunications, infrastructure, community development, housing, and 

transportation. 

The Committee recommendation for the ARC is $75,317,000, 

$7,054,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $10,467,000 above the budget request. 

The ARC targets 50 percent of its funds to distressed counties or 

distressed areas in the Appalachian region. The Committee continues to believe this should be the primary focus of the ARC. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $29,130,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 29,415,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 29,415,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +285,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was created by the fiscal year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. 

The Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 

provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 

regarding public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear facilities. The DNFSB is responsible for reviewing 

and evaluating the content and implementation of the standards 

relating to the design, construction, operation, and the decommissioning of the Department of Energy’s defense nuclear facilities. 

The Committee expects the DNFSB to continue to play a significant role in scrutinizing the Department’s safety and security activities, including the reform initiatives underway in the Department that may impact projects under its jurisdiction. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2013 is 

$29,415,000, $285,000 above fiscal year 2012 and the same as the 

request. 

The recommendation includes $200,000, as requested, to procure 

inspector general services from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Inspector General, as directed in the fiscal year 2012 conference agreement. The Committee directs the DNFSB and the Inspector General to examine inspector general arrangements into 

which other non-regulatory, advisory bodies of similar size to the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
170 

DNFSB have entered to develop alternatives for the appropriate 

size, scope, and approach for DNFSB inspector general services. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $11,677,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 11,315,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 11,677,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +362,000 

The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state partnership established by the Delta Regional Authority Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–554) that serves a 252-county/parish area in an eightstate region near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each participating state, the DRA 

is designed to remedy severe and chronic economic distress by 

stimulating economic development and fostering partnerships that 

will have a positive impact on the region’s economy. The DRA 

seeks to help local communities leverage other federal and state 

programs, which are focused on basic infrastructure development, 

transportation improvements, business development, and job training services. Under federal law, at least 75 percent of appropriated 

funds must be invested in distressed counties and parishes, with 

50 percent of the funds earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. For fiscal year 2013 the Committee recommends $11,677,000, the same as fiscal year 2012 and $362,000 above the request. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $10,679,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 10,165,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 10,679,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +514,000 

The Denali Commission is a regional development agency established by the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–277) 

to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, health services, and economic support throughout Alaska. To ensure that local communities have a stake in Commission-funded projects, local cost-share 

requirements for construction and equipment have been established for both distressed and non-distressed communities. 

For the cost of the Commission’s operations in fiscal year 2013, 

the Committee recommends $10,679,000, the same as fiscal year 

2012 and $514,000 above the budget request. 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $1,497,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,425,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,425,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥72,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–234) authorized the establishment of the Northern Border ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
171 

gional Commission (NBRC) as a federal-state partnership intended 

to address the economic development needs of distressed portions 

of the four-state region of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 

New York. The Committee has continued legislative language addressing the Commission’s administrative expenses. The Committee recommends $1,425,000 to support the Commis- sion’s activities in fiscal year 2013, $72,000 below fiscal year 2012 

and the same as the budget request. 

SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $250,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... ............................

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 250,000 

Comparison: ............................

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +250,000 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–234) authorized the establishment of the Southeast Crescent 

Regional Commission as a federal-state partnership intended to address the economic development needs of distressed portions of the 

seven-state region in the southeastern United States not already 

served by a regional development agency. 

The Committee recommends $250,000 for operations of the commission in fiscal year 2013, the same as fiscal year 2012 and 

$250,000 above the budget request. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $1,027,240,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 1,042,200,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,038,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +11,560,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥3,400,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $¥899,726,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... ¥914,832,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥911,772,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥12,046,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ +3,060,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $127,514,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 127,368,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 127,028,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥486,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥340,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2013 is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
172 

$1,038,800,000, $11,560,000 above fiscal year 2012 and $3,400,000 

below the request. The total amount of budget authority is graphic 

by estimated revenues of $911,772,000, $12,046,000 more than fiscal year 2012 and $3,060,000 less than the request. Including revenues, the net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

is $127,028,000. 

The proper operation of the Commission depends on the ability 

of each Commissioner to have the financial resources readily available to perform necessary functions, but this can and should be accomplished while providing transparency regarding the full costs of 

supervising the NRC. To facilitate this process, the recommendation includes salaries, travel, and other support costs of the Commissioners in legislative language as it did last year. 

However, the Committee understands that there has been some 

confusion regarding the composition and management of these 

funds and, therefore, provides the following clarification. These 

costs shall include only salaries and benefits, travel, and other support costs. The Committee directs that these funds are to be jointly 

managed by the Commissioners, and the bill requires that the use 

and expenditure of these salaries, travel, and other support costs 

shall only be by a majority vote of the Commission. 

To ensure transparency, the NRC shall include a breakout and 

explanation of the Commission salaries, travel, and other support 

costs in its annual budget requests beginning with that for fiscal 

year 2014. If the Commission wishes to change the composition of 

the funds requested for its salaries, travel, and other support costs 

in future years, it must do so in an annual budget request or 

through a reprogramming. 

The Committee notes that the NRC continues its administrative 

shutdown of the Yucca Mountain license application, as well as its 

willful misrepresentation of congressional intent. The recommendation continues prior-year language prohibiting the Chairman of the 

NRC from terminating any program, project, or activity without 

the approval of a majority of Commissioners. In addition, the recommendation requires the NRC to notify and report to the Committees on the use of emergency functions. 

The Committee recommendation will support the following activities: 

Nuclear Reactor Safety ...................................................................... $809,900,000 

Operating Reactors ..................................................................... 545,100,000 

New Reactors ............................................................................... 264,800,000 

Nuclear Materials & Waste Safety ................................................... 228,900,000 

Fuel Facilities .............................................................................. 56,100,000 

Nuclear Materials Users ............................................................. 93,300,000 

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation .................................... 41,200,000 

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste ................................... 38,300,000 

The recommendation directs the use of prior-year funds to complete the Yucca Mountain license application. In addition, the recommendation cuts $3,400,000 from ‘‘Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation’’ activities to update the Waste Confidence Rule from 60 

years. The current Waste Confidence Rule is sufficient for decades 

to come, and the NRC has no justification to expedite an update 

except to provide cover for the Administration’s Yucca Mountain 

policy. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
173 

The Committee notes that the Chairman of the NRC introduced 

a level of uncertainty associated with appropriate planning zones 

adjacent to a nuclear facility with his recommendation following 

the Fukushima Daiichi disaster to evacuate American citizens 

within a 50 mile radius of the plants. The NRC has clarified that 

the planning zones in place in the United States protect public 

health and safety. The Committee understands that the Commission continuously monitors its public safety policies and recommendations and will update them if necessary. 

Integrated University Program.—From within available funds, 

the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to provide financial support for the university education programs relevant to the NRC 

mission, as the Commission continues to be reliant on a pipeline 

of highly trained nuclear engineers and scientists and benefits substantially from this university program. Not less than $5,000,000 

of this amount will be used for grants to support research projects 

that do not align with programmatic missions, but are critical to 

maintaining the discipline of nuclear science and engineering. 

Reporting Requirements.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide semi-annual reports on the status of its 

licensing and other regulatory activities. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $10,860,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 11,020,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 11,020,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +160,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $¥9,774,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... ¥9,918,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... ¥9,918,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ¥144,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $1,086,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 1,102,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,102,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... +16,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,020,000, 

$160,000 above fiscal year 2012 and the same as the budget request. Given the formula for fee recovery, the revenue estimate is 

$9,918,000, resulting in a net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General of $1,102,000. 

The Committee notes that within the appropriation for Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) the recommendation includes $200,000, as requested, to procure inspector general services 

from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Inspector General, as 

directed in the fiscal year 2012 conference agreement. The ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
174 

mittee directs the Inspector General and the DNFSB to examine 

inspector general arrangements into which other non-regulatory, 

advisory bodies of similar size to the DNFSB have entered, to develop alternatives for the appropriate size, scope, and relationship 

for DNFSB inspector general services. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $3,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 3,400,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 3,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ............................

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) was established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee 

expects the NWTRB to be actively engaged with the Department, 

the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on issues involving nuclear waste 

disposal. The NWTRB should also provide support to the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s efforts to archive and preserve all Yucca Mountain-related documents and 

physical materials of scientific value. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,400,000 for 

the NWTRB, the same as fiscal year 2012 and the same as the 

budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2012 ............................................................................ $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2013 ....................................................................... 3,084,000 

Recommended, 2013 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2012 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2013 ................................................................ ¥2,084,000 

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, pursuant to the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–324). 

The Federal Coordinator is responsible for coordinating local, federal, and international activities for a natural gas transportation 

project, including facilitating the permitting process, as well as 

joint surveillance and monitoring of construction with the State of 

Alaska. A North American natural gas pipeline would be an important step towards energy independence for the United States, as it 

could deliver significant domestic natural gas supply to the lower 

48 states. 

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

support the activities of this office in fiscal year 2013, the same as 

fiscal year 2012 and $2,084,000 below the budget request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
175 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Established in 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was 

created as a Government-owned corporation for the coordinated development of water and power programs among seven states in the 

Tennessee Valley. The TVA finances its program primarily from 

proceeds available from current power operations and borrowings 

against future power revenues. 

NNSA Tritium Program.—The Committee directs the Tennessee 

Valley Authority to bill the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) on a quarterly basis for the work supporting the 

NNSA’s tritium program. This requirement shall apply in future 

fiscal years unless countermanded by the Committee. 

Reports.—The Committee directs the Inspector General to forward copies of all audit and inspection reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and immediately make the Committee aware of any review that recommends cancellation of, or 

modification to, any major acquisition project or grant, or which 

recommends significant budgetary savings. The Inspector General 

is also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 

15 days any final audit or investigation report that was requested 

by the House Committee on Appropriations. This requirement shall 

apply in future fiscal years unless countermanded by the Committee. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

The bill continues a provision regarding the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission that prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds 

through a reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances, 

and limits the termination of any program, project, or activity except in certain circumstances. 

The bill includes a provision requiring reporting on the use of 

emergency authority. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
176 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds provided in this Act to, in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence 

congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters 

pending before the Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of Title 18, United 

States Code. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting the transfer of funds 

provided in this Act to any department, agency, or instrumentality 

of the United States Government, except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in this Act or any other 

Act. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting any new hire by any 

Federal agency funded in this Act that is not verified through the 

E-Verify Program. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds for any financial 

arrangement with a corporation which has been convicted of a felony, except in certain circumstances. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds for any financial 

arrangement with a corporation which has any unpaid Federal tax 

liability that has been assessed, except in certain circumstances. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in contravention 

of Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental justice. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds to pay for mitigation associated with the removal of FERC Project number 2342. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in this Act from 

being used to close the Yucca Mountain license application process, 

or for actions that would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the future. The bill includes a provision setting at $0 the amount that the 

proposed new budget authority in this recommendation exceeds the 

allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations under section 

302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY 

Pursuant to Section 6(e) of the rules of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the following statement 

is submitted regarding the specific powers granted to the Congress 

in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution. 

The principal constitutional authority for this legislation is 

clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United 

States (the appropriation power), which states: ‘‘No Money shall be 

drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations 

made by Law . . . .’’ In addition, clause 1 of section 8 of article I 

of the Constitution (the spending power) provides: ‘‘The Congress 

shall have the Power . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the 

common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . .’’ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
177 

Together, these specific constitutional provisions establish the congressional power of the purse, granting the Congress the authority 

to appropriate funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period of availability, and to set forth terms and conditions governing 

their use. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

Under section 106, ‘General Provisions, Corps of Engineers— 

Civil’, up to $4,300,000 of funds under the heading ‘Operation and 

Maintenance’ may be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps projects. 

TITLE II—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Under ‘Water and Related Resources’, $29,000 is available for 

transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $6,985,000 

is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary may be advanced 

to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of transfers may be 

increased or decreased within the overall appropriation under the 

heading. 

Under ‘California Bay Delta Restoration’, such sums as may be 

necessary to carry out authorized purposes may be transferred to 

appropriate accounts of other participating federal agencies. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Under section 302, ‘General Provisions—Department of Energy’, 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities 

in this Act may be transferred to appropriation accounts for such 

activities established pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred 

may be merged with funds in the applicable established accounts 

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time 

period as originally enacted. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
178 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor the report contains any Congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which 

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, stating that funds can be used for the construction of river 

and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects authorized by 

law, and for detailed studies and plans and specifications of such 

projects. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, providing that the limitation concerning total project costs in 

section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 2280), shall not apply during fiscal year 2013 

to any project that receives funds provided in that title. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River and Tributaries, permitting the use of funds from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 

and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 

related projects authorized by law; providing security for infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including administrative 

buildings and laboratories; maintaining authorized harbor channels 

provided by a State, municipality, or other public agency that serve 

essential navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and 

charting northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 

clearing and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to 

navigation. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds from 

a special account for resource protection, research, interpretation, 

and maintenance activities at outdoor recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of 

dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been collected. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
179 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the total 

amount of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or activities funded under the Operation and Maintenance heading shall 

not be allocated to a field operating activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and permitting the use of these funds for 

emergency activities as determined by the Chief of Engineers to be 

necessary and appropriate. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 

Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United 

States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, providing that funds are available for official reception and 

representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this Act for 

the activities funded in Expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural disaster. 

Language has been included to provide for funding for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase and hire of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the funds may be 

available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of 

funds except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the execution of any contract 

for a program, project or activity which commits funds in excess of 

the amount appropriated (to include funds reprogrammed under 

section 101) that remain unobligated. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 103, prohibiting the award of a continuing contract for any project funded out of the Inland Waterway Trust 

Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 104, regarding submission of the Chief of Engineers Report to congressional committees. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 105, requiring the Secretary of the Army to implement measures to prevent aquatic nuisance species from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic connection 

between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 106, providing for transfer authority to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service for mitigation for lost fisheries. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
180 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 107, restricting certain types of travel at the 

Chicago District of the Corps of Engineers. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 108, limiting the obligation of funds provided for 

the Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL & KY project until certain conditions have been met. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 109, prohibiting the use of certain funds until 

reporting requirements are met. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 110, prohibiting funds from being used to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction under the Clean 

Water Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 111, allowing the possession of firearms at 

water resources development projects under certain circumstances. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing that funds are available 

for fulfilling federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for 

grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local governments and Indian tribes. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, allowing fund transfers within the 

overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing that 

such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River 

Dam Fund; and, transfers may be increased or decreased within 

the overall appropriation. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing for funds to be derived 

from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established 

by 16 U.S.C. 6806; that funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 by 

non-federal entities shall be available for expenditure; and that 

funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a are to be credited to the 

Water and Related Resources account and available for expenditure. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing that funds may be used for 

high priority projects carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, 

as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of 

Public Law 102–575. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, providing that none of the 

funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or lease 

of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed 

to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by consent or decree. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
181 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta Restoration, permitting the transfer of funds to 

appropriate accounts of other participating federal agencies to 

carry out authorized purposes; allowing funds made available 

under this heading to be used for the federal share of the costs of 

the CALFED Program management; making the use of any funds 

provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for program-wide 

management and oversight activities subject to the approval of the 

Secretary of the Interior; and requiring that CALFED implementation be carried out with clear performance measures demonstrating 

concurrent progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the 

program. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and Administration, providing that funds are to be derived from 

the Reclamation Fund and prohibiting the use of any other appropriation in the Act for activities budgeted as policy and administration expenses. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase of motor vehicles 

for replacement. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, General Provisions, section 201, providing that none of the funds may 

be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming 

of funds except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 202, regarding the San Luis Unit and 

the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy waiving the allocation formula for the weatherization 

assistance program. 

Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding. 

Language has been included under Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 

plant and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; 

and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Energy permitting 

the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund only to support the Yucca 

Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development for the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 

and equitable interests in any real property or any facility or for 

plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for conducting inquires, technological investigations, and research concerning the 

extraction, processing, use and disposal of mineral substances withVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
182 

out objectionable social and environmental cost under 30 U.S.C. 3, 

1602 and 1603. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development, providing for the vesting of fee title or other real 

property interests acquired under projects in any entity, including 

the United States. 

Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances. 

Language has been included under the Elk Hills School Lands 

Fund, permitting payment to California for the State Teachers’ Retirement Fund. 

Language has been included under Northeast Home Heating Oil 

Reserve rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress 

as emergency funding. 

Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Science providing for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; 

and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Science rescinding funds that 

were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal providing funds to carry out the purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act of 1982, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, only to 

support the Yucca Mountain license application. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal providing funds to support any local governments which have formally 

consented to host the high-level waste repository authorized by the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section 

1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in an amount equal to the 

appropriated amount as graphicting collections to this account and 

making fees collected under section 1702(h) in excess of the appropriated amount unavailable for expenditure until appropriated. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 

Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the 

estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such increases are graphic by revenue increases of the same or greater 

amounts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95–238, to permit the Department of Energy to use revenues to graphic appropriations. The appropriations 

language for this account reflects the total estimated program 

funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities for the 

purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of an ambulance. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
183 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities rescinding 

funds that were not designated by the Congress as emergency 

funding. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment; and for the purchase of a motor vehicle. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding. 

Language has been included under Naval Reactors for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under the Office of the Administrator providing funding for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Language has been included under Defense Environmental 

Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Defense Environmental 

Cleanup rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress 

as emergency funding. 

Language has been included under Other Defense Activities for 

the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment. 

Language has been included under Bonneville Power Administration Fund providing funding for official reception and representation expenses; approving funds for certain programs; and precluding any new direct loan obligations. 

Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 

Southeastern Power Administration providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 

Southeastern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 16 U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected 

from the sale of power and related services shall be credited to the 

account as discretionary graphicting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 

credited to the account as graphicting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power 

and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 

Southwestern Power Administration providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 

Southwestern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 16 U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected 

from the sale of power and related services shall be credited to the 

account as discretionary graphicting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern Power Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 

credited to the account as graphicting collections and remain availVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:44 May 02, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
184 

able until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power 

and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration 

providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 16 U.S.C. 825s, 

and 43 U.S.C. 392a, amounts collected from the sale of power and 

related services shall be credited to the account as discretionary 

graphicting collections and remain available until expended for the 

sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area 

Power Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase 

power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 

graphicting collections and remain available until expended for the 

sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that, notwithstanding 68 

Stat. 255 and 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected from the sale of 

power and related services shall be credited to the account as discretionary graphicting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the 

hydroelectric facilities of those dams and associated Western Area 

Power Administration activities. 

Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to permit 

the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 301, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 

or initiate requests for proposals or other solicitations or arrangements for programs that have not yet been fully funded by the 

Congress; limiting the use of multi-year funding mechanisms; and 

providing that none of the funds may be available for obligation or 

expenditure through a reprogramming of funds except in certain 

circumstances. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 302, providing that unexpended balances of 

prior appropriations may be transferred and merged with new appropriation accounts established in this Act. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 303, providing that funds for intelligence 

activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of 

section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 

2013 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2013. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 304, prohibiting the use of funds for capital 

construction of high hazard nuclear facilities unless certain independent oversight is conducted. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 305, prohibiting the use of funds to approve 

critical decision–2 or critical decision–3 for certain construction 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
185 

projects, unless a separate independent cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 306, establishing certain notification requirements that must be fulfilled before any funds in this title may 

be used to make certain awards, allocations, agreements, or public 

announcements. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 307, prohibiting funds to pay the salaries 

of employees to carry out section 407 of division A of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 308, amending reporting requirements established in public law 110–5. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 309, requiring a plan for enriched uranium. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 310, prohibiting funds for uranium transactions that do not conform to the excess uranium inventory management plan. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 311, prohibiting funds to promulgate or implement a rule pursuant to section 433 of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 312, prohibiting implementation of a memo 

from the Secretary of Energy to the Power Marketing Administrators dated March 16, 2012. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Language has been included under Appalachian Regional Commission providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and allowing 

the expenditure of funds as authorized by subtitle IV of title 40, 

United States Code, without regard to section 14704. 

Language has been included under Delta Regional Authority allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by the Delta Regional Authority Act without regard to section 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 

382M and 382N of said Act. 

Language has been included under Denali Commission allowing 

the expenditure of funds notwithstanding section 306(g) of the 

Denali Commission Act of 1998, and providing for cost-share requirements for Commission-funded construction projects in distressed and non-distressed communities, as defined by section 307 

of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C, Title III, Public 

Law 105–277), and an amount not to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities. 

Language has been included under Northern Border Regional 

Commission for expenditure as authorized by subtitle V of title 40, 

Untied States Code, without regard to section 15751(b). 

Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for salaries and other 

support costs for the Office of the Commission, to be controlled by 

majority vote of the Commission. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
186 

Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for official representation 

expenses and permits the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and expenses to 

reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. Funding is provided to support university research and development, and for a 

Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program. 

Language has been included under Office of Inspector General 

that provides for the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and expenses, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, to reduce 

the appropriation as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects making 

funds received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law 110–140 in 

excess of the amount specified unavailable for obligation until appropriated. 

Language has been included under Independent Agencies, General Provisions, section 401, establishing reprogramming requirements for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and improving 

project management by the Commission. 

Language has been included under Independent Agencies, General Provisions, section 402, improving transparency for the use of 

emergency powers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

501, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending 

before the Congress. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

502, prohibiting the transfer of funds except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in this or any other Act. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

503, prohibiting any new hire by any Federal agency funded in this 

Act that is not verified through the E-Verify Program. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

504, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement with a corporation which has been convicted of a felony, except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

505, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement with a corporation which has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 

assessed, except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

506, prohibiting funds in contravention of Executive Order No. 

12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental justice. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

507, prohibiting funds made available by this Act to pay for mitigation associated with the removal of Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission Project number 2342. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

508, prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to close the 

Yucca Mountain license application process, or for actions that 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
187 

would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the future. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 509, setting at $0 the amount that the proposed new budget authority exceeds the allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 20320 OF THE CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS 

RESOLUTION, 2007 

(Division B of Public Law 109–289) 

SEC. 20320. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) The Secretary of Energy shall enter into a 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 3 years of the Department’s execution of the program under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. The results of the independent audit and the Comptroller 

General’s review shall be provided directly to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

* * * * * * * 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the 

accompanying bill which are not authorized: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
188 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 04 here HR462.033
189 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Department or Activity Amount 

Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy .............$69,667,000 

Department of Energy: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ................... 6,000,000 

Department of Energy: Science ...................................................................... 23,500,000 

Department of Energy: Weapons Activities ................................................... 65,000,000 

Department of Energy: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .......................... 7,000,000 

Department of Energy: Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................ 10,000,000 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act. 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF FY2013 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO 

SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget 

Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its 

subcommittees: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development 

Discretionary .................................................................................. 1 32,098 1 40,692 32,098 240,682 

Mandatory ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

1 Preliminary 

2 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table contains five-year projections prepared 

by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the 

budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2013 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 19,347 

2014 ................................................................................................................................................................ 9,005 

2015 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,934 

2016 ................................................................................................................................................................ 484 

2017 and future years .................................................................................................................................... 215 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
190 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ....................................................................................................................................................... 91 

Outlays ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 19 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year authority. 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House 

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those 

voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
191 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 031 here HR462.081
192 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 032 here HR462.082
193 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.083
194 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.034
195 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.035
196 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.036
197 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.037
198 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.038
199 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.039
200 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.040
201 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.041
202 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.042
203 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here HR462.043
(204) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF 

NORM DICKS AND PETER VISCLOSKY 

We commend Chairman Rogers and Chairman Frelinghuysen for 

their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill 

funds critical water resource projects, supports science activities 

necessary for American competitiveness, and contributes to our national defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research, and 

nonproliferation funding, all priorities that unite rather than divide 

us. Chairman Frelinghuysen has worked hard to incorporate the 

interests of Members from both parties. 

However, we are extremely disappointed that House Republicans 

walked away from the bipartisan agreement to establish $1.047 

trillion as the Committee’s allocation. A majority of their conference voted for the Budget Control Act agreement less than nine 

months ago. By reneging on the agreement, House Republicans put 

themselves at odds with House Democrats, the White House, Senate Democrats, and Senate Republicans. Senate Minority Leader 

McConnell recently voted for allocations at $1.047 trillion and 

Ranking Member Cochran stated that it is appropriate ‘‘for the 

Committee to proceed on the basis of the discretionary caps enacted into law.’’ House Republicans have introduced uncertainty 

about the discretionary allocation, and about whether the House 

majority will threaten to shut down the government. This uncertainty will slow down the appropriations process and the austere 

House allocation, if it stands, could stall economic growth and impede job creation. 

The subcommittee’s allocation is $32,097,500,000, a decrease of 

$964,955,000 from the Administration’s budget request and 

$87,500,000 above the 2012 level. While the allocation is above 

2012, this is solely due to an increase of $275,000,000 in security 

funding. Consequently, the Committee made severe cuts to crucial 

energy programs to stay within the allocation. While we truly appreciate the Chairman’s considerable efforts and recognize that difficult choices must be made to address the nation’s serious financial situation, this bill starkly illustrates the shortsighted nature of 

the spending cap set by the House budget. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed 

by the energy crisis, the need to maintain our water infrastructure 

and our national security requirements. 

We commend the Chairman for increasing Corps of Engineers funding by $83 million above the President’s woefully inadequate 

request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will not be terminated. However, the bill provides $188 million less than 2012. We 

must invest in our infrastructure by making preventative and 

proactive investments. It makes more fiscal sense to prevent a disaster than to respond. Additionally, businesses and individuals are 

much more likely to invest in a community if there is confidence 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
205 

in its infrastructure. Further, the nation’s ports and waterways are 

critical to ensuring that American made goods can move to market, 

both domestically and abroad. We firmly believe that our underinvestment in infrastructure continues to hamper our economic recovery and has prolonged our current employment crisis. 

The bill continues the subcommittee’s efforts over the years to 

improve program and project management at all of the agencies 

under its jurisdiction. For example, the bill does not include the requested authorizing language to raise the total allowable cost of 

the Olmsted Lock and Dam project to $2.9 billion. This is a project 

that began in 1988 as a $775 million replacement for two aging facilities on the Ohio River. Instead the bill includes a provision that 

limits the expenditure of funds on the project until the Corps has 

completed a review of the construction methodology and developed 

a plan for the completion of the project. Further, the report requires an independent review of the Corps work to ensure that the 

plan forward is the most effective alternative. 

This is just one illustration of the subcommittee’s continued efforts to improve program and project management at all of the 

agencies under its jurisdiction. We strongly support the Chairman 

on this and all the other provisions, old and new, aimed at increased oversight and improved project management at the Corps 

and DOE. However, we are disappointed that the subcommittee 

must repeat so many of these provisions from year to year. It 

would behoove the agencies to incorporate these policies into their 

management structure. 

The Science account, critical to the competitiveness of our nation, 

is reduced by 1.5 percent from 2012. While, the bill also provides 

funds for the continuation of ARPA–E, it is at a level $75 million 

below the prior year. Both of these agencies drive innovations to 

support our scientific competitiveness that we believe will eventually provide much of the inspiration to overcome the energy crisis 

and address climate change. We are disappointed with the level of 

funding provided in the bill, $190 million and $150 million below 

the request, respectively. 

With regard to the applied energy programs at the Department 

of Energy, the bill includes appropriate funding for fossil and nuclear energy, but we are disappointed that renewable energy programs in this bill are drastically reduced, $428 million from 2012 

and $886 million from the President’s request. In providing for critical research and development for those sectors that currently provide the bulk of our electricity generation, we cannot sacrifice the 

future. Renewable energy can achieve cost competitiveness but a 

continued and sustained research and development program is necessary and appropriate. The United States can leverage its 

strength—innovation—to restore the United States to a position of 

global leadership in clean energy. This effort is a critical national 

priority, with implications for our economic competitiveness, national security, and environmental legacy. 

While we are concerned with the level of funding, we do appreciate the Chairman’s commitment to American manufacturing. 

Only 12 percent of the nation’s private sector workforce is currently 

employed in manufacturing, yet it remains one of the most important drivers in our economy. We see very little merit to using fedVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:18 May 03, 2012 Jkt 073988 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR462.XXX HR462

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
206 

eral dollars to foster technological advances or breakthroughs for 

products that are not ultimately manufactured domestically. We 

must do more to reverse the trend of domestic firms shifting production overseas, because—to put it simply—domestic manufacturing drives domestic innovation. If you stop manufacturing a 

product in the U.S. it is often only a matter of time before the engineering and research and development responsible for the product 

move overseas. This shift then makes it virtually impossible for our 

nation to compete for and create the next generation of products. 

In turn, the loss of these employment opportunities discourages 

students from pursuing education in scientific and engineering 

fields. 

Fortunately, trends are improving as many companies are beginning to invest domestically and move jobs back to the U.S. The conversation has turned from unit costs to the ‘‘total cost of production.’’ In these terms, the U.S. begins to look more attractive for investment. Rising wages in developing countries and gains in U.S. 

productivity relative to other countries—coupled with concerns pertaining to supply chains and uncertainty regarding inputs such as 

energy—make our country more competitive. Both this bill and the 

Administration’s budget place a significant emphasis on domestic 

manufacturing, a development we enthusiastically support. 

Nonproliferation activities receive an eight percent reduction 

from 2012; however, we commend the Chairman for preserving the 

core nonproliferation activities. With constrained funding, the 

Chairman provides additional funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, proliferation detection and nuclear detonation detection. 

The bill includes funding for a national security-related domestic 

uranium enrichment technology development, otherwise known as 

the United States Enrichment Corporation. While we appreciate 

the Chairman’s decision to move forward cautiously, we question 

the need for this program and object to its characterization as a 

Nonproliferation activity. The Department of Energy itself has repeatedly characterized this program as supporting the nuclear 

weapons program and has provided insufficient evidence that this 

additional expenditure is necessary in any case. Despite our reservations regarding this program, we applaud the Chairman’s decision to include statutory report language requiring a low enriched 

uranium and tritium management plan. However, we find it astonishing that the language is necessary when simple logic would dictate that the Department of Energy would have such a plan given 

the importance of tritium to our national security. 

We are concerned that the funding the bill includes for Environmental Management (EM) activities is insufficient to meet the federal government’s legal obligations to clean up its defense nuclear 

waste. This program is critical to addressing the environmental 

legacies of the Cold War and the Manhattan Project. Given that 

EM’s portfolio is one of the nation’s largest environmental and financial liabilities, we have the responsibility to address the waste 

and contamination in the affected communities in a timely and 

competent manner. 

Lastly, we commend Chairman Frelinghuysen for the decision to 

provide funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
207 

project and for including the provision to prohibit the use of funding to abandon the project. We agree that the Administration’s actions to close down the project run counter to the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act Congress of 1982. 

As this bill moves forward, we hope to work with the majority 

to address these concerns. 

NORMAN D. DICKS. PETER J. VISCLOSKY. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS