Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


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

                                                             BillReport
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
        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
        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.


                              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 $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 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 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 domestic 
exploitation of Department-developed intellectual property. 
Without such a strategy, U.S. manufacturing will too frequently 
be forced to play ``catch-up'' with foreign competitors 
benefitting from ideas formed here in the U.S. The Committee 
strongly urges the 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.

                    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 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    Report on hazards of woody
 Maintenance.                             debris in Lake Chelan, WA
Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and    Status updates for litigation
 Maintenance.                             on mining activities near Tom
                                          Jenkins Dam, OH
Army Corps of Engineers/Flood Control    Report on method for tracking
 and Coastal Emergencies.                 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   Guidance on manufacturing jobs
 and Renewable Energy (EERE).             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
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         Guidance on test grid for
 Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER).  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         Action plan for small sites
 Environmental Cleanup.                   remediation
Department of Energy/Uranium Enrichment  Guidance on progress of Title X
 Decontamination and Decommissioning.     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       Guidance on Minority Serving
 Administrator.                           Institution Partnership
                                          Program
Department of Energy/Defense             Report on National Spent
 Environmental Cleanup.                   Nuclear Fuel Program
Department of Energy/Bonneville Power    Notification requirement for
 Administration Fund.                     final plan for high voltage
                                          line
Department of Energy/Bonneville Power    Report on direction received
 Administration Fund.                     from the Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy/Southeastern Power  Report on direction received
 Administration Fund.                     from the Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy/Southwestern Power  Report on direction received
 Administration Fund.                     from the Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy/Western Area Power  Report on direction received
 Administration Fund.                     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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   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, risk-to-life index, Endangered Species Act compliance, 
and restoration of a nationally- or regionally-significant 
aquatic ecosystem. Operation and Maintenance funds were 
allocated based on a mix of factors including tonnage 
movements, risk and consequences assessment, and visitation at 
recreation sites. It is entirely unclear, though, how any of 
these factors were ranked or weighted during development of the 
budget.
    Most concerning is the fact that these metrics were not 
applied consistently to all previously-funded projects. In 
other words, numerous ongoing studies and projects, previously 
funded by congressional direction, were not 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.
    Congress historically has appropriated more funding for 
HMTF-related 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 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.

           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 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 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-project-based programs, the Congress at times 
disagreed with the priorities stated in the President's budget 
request and made its priorities known in appropriations bills. 
Final federal government priorities were established in Acts 
passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed by the 
President.
    On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to 
prohibit congressional earmarks, as defined in House rule XXI. 
That definition encompasses project-level funding not requested 
by the President. Following that vote, the Committee reviewed 
the historical format of appropriations for the Corps to see if 
there was a more transparent way to highlight programmatic 
priorities without abandoning congressional oversight 
responsibilities. The fiscal year 2012 Act included a 
modification to the format used in previous years, and that 
format is continued for fiscal year 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.''
    The executive branch retains complete discretion over 
project-specific allocation decisions within the additional 
funds provided. The spending plan submitted to the Committee, 
however, shall include a detailed description of the evaluation 
systems developed and any discrepancies between those studies 
and projects with the highest ratings and those studies and 
projects that received funding. Discrepancies include highly-
rated activities that did not receive funding as well as 
activities that received funding that were not rated as highly 
as projects that were not funded. For any study or project 
excluded from funding for being ``inconsistent with 
Administration policy,'' the spending plan shall explain in 
detail why the activity is inconsistent with Administration 
policy.

                   PROJECT COST AUTHORIZATION LIMITS

    Water resource projects of the Corps of Engineers typically 
have been authorized for construction with a maximum project 
cost specified in statute. Section 902 of the Water Resources 
Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 provides the Corps with the 
flexibility to increase 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 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2012         FY 2013        Committee
                             Account                                  enacted         request       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:


    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 
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:


    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 cost-share; 
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 obligated for any 
project under this program which has not been justified in such 
a report.
    Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).--The Committee 
continues to support all sections of the Continuing Authorities 
Program. 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:


                       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:


    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 obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal year; ability 
to complete the project, separable element, or project phase 
within the funds allocated; and the risk of imminent failure or 
closure of the facility.
    The Committee is concerned that the Administration's 
criteria for navigation maintenance do not allow small, remote, 
or subsistence harbors and waterways to properly compete for 
scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee urges the 
Corps to revise the criteria used for determining which 
navigation projects are funded in order to develop a reasonable 
and equitable allocation under this account. The criteria 
should include the economic impact that these projects provide 
to local and regional economies, in particular those with 
national defense or public health and safety importance. 
Further, the Committee directs the Corps to allocate not less 
than $30,000,000 of the additional funds provided to small, 
remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways.
    Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the 
Corps shall provide to the Committee a work plan (1) detailing 
the ratings system developed and used to evaluate projects; (2) 
delineating how these funds are to be distributed; (3) 
including a summary of the work to be accomplished with each 
allocation; and (4) 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.
    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 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.

             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.

                  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                  $1,000,000
 Mitigation, and Conservation.........................
Section 201(a)(1) Mitigation Measures.................           200,000
    Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and                     1,200,000
 Conservation Commission..............................


    For program oversight and administration, the Committee 
recommends $1,300,000, the same as the budget request. For fish 
and 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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 FY 2012      FY 2013       Committee
           Account               enacted      request      recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Related Resources..     $895,000     $818,635         $833,635
Central Valley Project              53,068       39,883           39,883
 Restoration Fund............
California Bay-Delta                39,651       36,000           36,000
 Restoration.................
Policy and Administration....       60,000       60,000           57,000
Indian Water Rights            ...........       46,500  ...............
 Settlements.................
San Joaquin River Restoration  ...........       12,000  ...............
 Fund........................
Central Utah Project           ...........       21,000  ...............
 Completion..................
    Total, Bureau of             1,047,719    1,034,018          966,518
     Reclamation.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      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:


    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 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 life-cycle 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.

                    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 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 Environmental 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.
    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 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.

           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 Centers, 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 highly-effective 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 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 
taxpayer-funded 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 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.

                        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.

                            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.
    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 
demonstrates 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.
    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 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.
    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 cost-neutral 
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 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 rescission 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.

                             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.
    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 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 Remote-
Handled 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 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 opportunities for the 
efficient use of natural gas, and to contribute significantly 
to the development of alternative-fuel vehicles.
    Within available funds, the recommendation includes 
$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 
includes $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 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.

                      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 
Reserve 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 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, 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


    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 non-appropriated 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 government's share of the cost of cleaning up uranium 
and thorium processing sites. The Department reports 
$32,756,000 in approved but unpaid claim balances and up to 
$241,495,000 in remaining potential liability. 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.

                 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 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.

                 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 requirements will create substantial budgetary 
challenges throughout the decade. The Committee appreciates 
that the Office of Science is grappling with these challenges 
but notes that the budget request does not 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 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.

               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.
    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.

        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.
    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.
    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 Committee 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 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 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 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.
    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 cost-effective 
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. 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 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 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 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.

                       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 five-year 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.
    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.

       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.

       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 H-Canyon 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 projected 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.
    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. 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 
prior-year 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 
provided in the budget request. Given this uncertainty in the 
out-years, 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 out-year 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 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, 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 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.
    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 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 defense 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, 
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.

      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 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.............................  ................
 

                                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 
Regulatory 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.


                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.
                     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 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 eight-state region near the mouth of the Mississippi 
River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each 
participating state, the DRA is designed to remedy severe and 
chronic economic distress by stimulating economic development 
and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on 
the region's economy. The DRA seeks to help local communities 
leverage other federal and state programs, which are focused on 
basic infrastructure development, transportation improvements, 
business development, and job training services. Under federal 
law, at least 75 percent of appropriated funds must be invested 
in distressed counties and parishes, with 50 percent of the 
funds 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 
Regional Commission (NBRC) as a federal-state partnership 
intended to address the economic development needs of 
distressed portions of the four-state region of Maine, New 
Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. The Committee has continued 
legislative language addressing the Commission's administrative 
expenses.
    The Committee recommends $1,425,000 to support the 
Commission'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 
$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.
    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 Committee 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.

                       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.
                      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 . . . .'' 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.

   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.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the 
total amount of funds provided for each of the programs, 
projects, or activities funded under the Operation and 
Maintenance heading shall not be allocated to a field operating 
activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and 
permitting the use of these funds for emergency activities as 
determined by the Chief of Engineers to be necessary and 
appropriate.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 
Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United 
States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the 
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Expenses, providing that funds are available for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this 
Act for the activities funded in Expenses.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency 
appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general 
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other 
activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural 
disaster.
    Language has been included to provide for funding for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase and hire 
of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the 
funds may be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the execution of 
any contract for a program, project or activity which commits 
funds in excess of the amount appropriated (to include funds 
reprogrammed under section 101) that remain unobligated.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 103, prohibiting the award of a 
continuing contract for any project funded out of the Inland 
Waterway Trust Fund.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 104, regarding submission of the 
Chief of Engineers Report to congressional committees.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 105, requiring the Secretary of the 
Army to implement measures to prevent aquatic nuisance species 
from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic 
connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River 
Basin.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 106, providing for transfer 
authority to the Fish and Wildlife Service for mitigation for 
lost fisheries.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 107, 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.
    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 without objectionable social and 
environmental cost under 30 U.S.C. 3, 1602 and 1603.
    Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 
Development, providing for the vesting of fee title or other 
real property interests acquired under 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.
    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 available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration, providing funds for official reception and 
representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 
16 U.S.C. 825s, and 43 U.S.C. 392a, amounts collected from the 
sale of power and related services shall be credited to the 
account as discretionary 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 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.
    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 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 [an 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:


                              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                  Budget
                                                                   Authority    Outlays    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   \2\40,682
    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:

 
                        [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:



                          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 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 federal dollars to foster technological advances or 
breakthroughs for products that are not ultimately manufactured 
domestically. We must do more to reverse the trend of domestic 
firms shifting production overseas, because--to put it simply--
domestic manufacturing drives domestic innovation. 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 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.