Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 157
112th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     112-75

======================================================================



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012

                                _______
                                

               September 7, 2011.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

         Mrs. Feinstein, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                                 REPORT

                        [To accompany H.R. 2354]

    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, reports the same to 
the Senate with an amendment and recommends that the bill as 
amended do pass.



New obligational authority

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $32,765,568,000
Amount of 2011 appropriations...........................  31,789,895,000
Amount of 2012 budget estimate..........................  36,575,809,000
House allowance.........................................  30,224,061,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2011 appropriations.................................    +975,673,000
    2012 budget estimate................................  -3,810,241,000
    House allowance.....................................  +2,541,507,000


                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Purpose..........................................................     4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations.........................     4
Title I:
    Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil:
            General Investigations...............................    22
            Construction, General................................    28
            Flood Control, Mississippi River, and Tributaries....    36
            Operation and Maintenance, General...................    38
            Regulatory Program...................................    55
            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program......    55
            Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................    56
            General Expenses.....................................    56
            Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 
              Works).............................................    57
            General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........    00
Title II:
    Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project Completion Account..................    60
        Bureau of Reclamation:
            Water and Related Resources..........................    61
            Central Valley Project Restoration Fund..............    71
            California Bay-Delta Restoration.....................    72
            Policy and Administration............................    72
            Indian Water Rights Settlements......................    73
            San Joaquin Restoration Fund.........................    73
        General Provisions--Department of the Interior...........    73
Title III:
    Department of Energy:
        Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy...................    77
        Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability..............    80
        Nuclear Energy...........................................    80
        Fossil Energy Research and Development...................    84
        Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves...................    85
        Strategic Petroleum Reserve..............................    85
        Strategic Petroleum Account..............................    85
        Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.......................    86
        Energy Information Administration........................    86
        Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup........................    86
        Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
          Fund...................................................    87
        Science..................................................    88
        Nuclear Waste Disposal...................................    95
        Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy................    96
        Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program.............    96
        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program..    97
        Better Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative.........    97
        Departmental Administration..............................    97
        Office of the Inspector General..........................    98
        Weapons Activities.......................................    98
        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.........................   107
        Naval Reactors...........................................   112
        Office of the Administrator..............................   113
        Defense Environmental Cleanup............................   113
        Other Defense Activities.................................   116
        Power Marketing Administrations:
            Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power 
              Administration.....................................   117
            Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power 
              Administration.....................................   117
            Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and 
              Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration.....   117
            Falcon and Amistad Operations and Maintenance Fund...   117
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and 
          Expenses...............................................   118
        General Provisions--Department of Energy.................   141
Title IV:
    Independent Agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission..........................   142
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board..................   142
        Delta Regional Authority.................................   142
        Denali Commission........................................   142
        Northern Border Regional Commission......................   142
        Southeast Crescent Regional Commission...................   142
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................   142
            Office of Inspector General..........................   144
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.....................   145
        Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 
          Transportation Projects................................   145
Title V: General Provisions......................................   146
Title VI: Emergency Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief.....   147
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   149
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   149
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   150
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   156
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................   157

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2012 beginning October 1, 2011, and ending 
September 30, 2012, for energy and water development, and for 
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources 
development programs and related activities of the Department 
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the 
Department of Energy's energy research activities, including 
environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic 
energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration in title III; and for related independent 
agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.

                SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    The fiscal year 2012 budget estimates for the bill total 
$36,539,809,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $31,625,000,000. This is 
$4,889,809,000 below the budget estimates and $57,000,000 below 
the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $1,044,568,000 
in additional funding for disaster relief.

                         Subcommittee Hearings

    The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held 
three sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2012 
appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and 
representatives of the Federal agencies under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    The recommendations for fiscal year 2012 therefore, have 
been developed after careful consideration of available data.

                         Votes in the Committee

    By a vote of 29 to 1 the Committee on September 7, 2011, 
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the 
Senate.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is made up of 
approximately 35,000 civilian and 650 military members that 
perform both military and Civil Works functions. The military 
and civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work 
hand in hand as leaders in engineering and environmental 
matters. The diverse workforce of biologists, engineers, 
geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers, and other 
professionals meets the demands of changing times and 
requirements as a vital part of America's Army.
    The Corps' mission is to provide quality, responsive 
engineering services to the Nation including:
  --Planning, designing, building, and operating water 
        resources and other Civil Works projects (Navigation, 
        Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster 
        Response, et cetera);
  --Designing and managing the construction of military 
        facilities for the Army and Air Force (Military 
        Construction); and
  --Providing design and construction management support for 
        other Defense and Federal agencies (Interagency and 
        International Services).
    The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works 
missions of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000 
civilians and about 290 military officers are responsible for 
this nationwide mission.
    While the Corps Civil Works programs impact all 50 States 
and virtually every citizen of our Nation, they are a 
relatively minor part of the Federal budget. Funding for the 
Corps comprised a little over 0.13 percent of the total Federal 
budget for fiscal year 2011.

      OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST

    The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Corps of 
Engineers is composed of $4,609,000,000 in new budget authority 
including a proposed $22,000,000 rescission. This is a decrease 
of $308,000,000 from the fiscal year 2011 request. The budget 
request is $284,213,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
amount. The budget request assumes a $22,000,000 rescission 
that was included as a part of the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
bill. The administration has not proposed a budget amendment to 
close this $22,000,000 gap. Therefore the Committee will refer 
to the Corps' budget request as $4,631,000,000 throughout this 
report.
    The tradition of this bill has been that virtually all 
funding for the Corps of Engineers is designated to specific 
studies/projects. The administration's budget request for 
fiscal year 2012 continues this tradition. The four major 
study/project accounts (General Investigations, Construction, 
General, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation and 
Maintenance) comprise $4,108,000,000 of the administration's 
overall budget request of $4,631,000,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers. Only $309,198,000 of the budget request in these 
four accounts is considered as programmatic funding. That is 
about 7.5 percent of the funding proposed in these accounts. 
The remainder of the $3,798,802,000 proposed in the four major 
accounts is divided among 876 individual line item studies or 
projects proposed by the administration. As the Corps of 
Engineers has no inherent programmatic authorities under which 
the organization was created, all of these individual studies 
and projects are intended to be specifically authorized by 
Congress and specifically funded through appropriations acts.
    This Committee continues to believe that Members of 
Congress are best positioned to know the unique needs of their 
individual States and congressional districts. In past years, 
Congress, exercising their prerogatives under the Constitution 
would have added projects and studies to the administration's 
request to ensure that the Nation's water resource needs were 
met. As the four major study/project accounts in the Corps are 
comprised of individual line items of studies or projects, the 
Committee usually added line items for studies or projects that 
were not included in the administration's budget request or, 
alternatively, increased funding to items requested by the 
administration to accelerate the project delivery process on 
those items.
    The line items that were added by Congress in previous 
years were authorized and vetted in a public process in the 
same manner as those line items that the administration 
included in their request. The difference between the items 
added by Congress and those included by the administration is 
that the administration applied a number of supplemental 
criterion for budgeting a study or project that the 
authorizations for these studies or projects does not require. 
Establishment of budget criteria was, and continues to be, an 
administrative prerogative. It should be understood that this 
criteria is established not necessarily to meet the Nation's 
water resource needs, but rather to help the administration 
decide which needs they choose to include in their budget 
request. History has shown that this criteria is extremely 
flexible depending on what an administration wants to fund in a 
given year. This Committee does not believe that this budget 
criteria, established by the administration without input from 
the public or Congress, has any more validity than the criteria 
that the Congress has used in the past to decide which projects 
to fund.
    Due to the vagaries of the administration's budget 
criteria, the Congress has provided the consistency in funding 
for items within the Corps of Engineers budget. Corps of 
Engineers projects generally have two definitive points where 
Congress can decide the Federal commitment to a water resources 
development project. The first point is when an item is being 
studied. By providing the initial study funding, the Congress 
is making a tacit commitment that it intends to see the study 
process through to completion. By the same token when a project 
is authorized for construction and receives its initial 
construction funding, that is a commitment that the Congress 
intends to see the project through to completion. That is why 
so few ``new'' studies and projects have been funded in recent 
years. Congress has acknowledged the tight fiscal environment 
by not creating tremendous outyear obligations for the Corps 
with new work.
    The administration used to adhere to these two definitive 
starting points as well in their budget process, but that has 
changed in recent years. There are numerous examples of 
projects or studies that are included in the budget request in 
a given year or for several years in a row and then suddenly, 
due to changed budgeting criteria, they are not included.
    Nearly all studies and projects are cost shared. That means 
a local sponsor has contractually agreed to provide a 
proportionate non-Federal share to match the Federal funds 
appropriated. When these projects are not provided either 
through the budget or an appropriations act, the work is 
deferred until funding is appropriated. This inconsistent 
funding, increases project costs, defers the projects benefits 
to the national economy and plays havoc with the non-Federal 
entities' financing plans for a projects and studies. 
Traditionally, Congress has provided the consistency for 
studies and projects undertaken by the Corps of Engineers 
through congressionally directed spending by maintaining the 
commitments to local sponsors and insuring consistent levels of 
funding for the projects or studies that were initiated or 
funded in appropriation acts.
    A few examples will illustrate this point of this 
inconsistent budgeting.
    Congress added initial construction funding for St. Louis 
flood protection in fiscal year 2008. This project was not 
proposed by the administration because it did not meet their 
budgetary criteria. Yet the administration included this 
project in their fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 budget 
and completed the project because their criteria for those 
years allowed it to be budgeted. Had Congress not initiated 
this project, it is unclear when it might have made it into the 
administration's budget request.
    Initial funding for the Ozark-Jeta Taylor and Whitney Lake 
Powerhouse rehabilitations were added by Congress in fiscal 
year 2004. In fiscal year 2005, they were included in the 
administration budget request. In fiscal year 2006, neither was 
included in the budget request. In fiscal year 2007, neither 
was included in the administration budget request, but Whitney 
Lake was funded in the fiscal year 2007 work plan when the 
administration decided how the fiscal year 2007 continuing 
resolution funding would be administered. In fiscal year 2008, 
Ozark was included in the budget but Whitney was excluded. In 
fiscal year 2009, Ozark was in the budget request and Whitney 
was out. In fiscal year 2010-2012, both were excluded from the 
budget request. The Corps informed the Committee that the 
termination costs for the Ozark contract would exceed 
$20,000,000 in fiscal year 2011. Yet, the administration 
managed to include funding under the continuing resolution for 
fiscal year 2011 to avoid this termination even though this was 
not an item that was budgeted for. In the cases of both Whitney 
and Ozark, Congress consistently provided needed funding 
through Appropriation Acts since they were initiated.
    A final example is the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal 
Dispersal Barrier. This project was initiated by Congress in 
fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004 it was included in the 
budget request and funded by Congress at more than the 
administration requested. In fiscal year 2005, it was not 
included in the budget request but was funded by Congress. In 
fiscal year 2006 it was not in the budget request and no 
funding was provided. However, it has been requested and funded 
in every year from fiscal year 2007-2012. This is the main 
barrier designed to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. How 
could a project as important as this be treated so 
inconsistently in the administration's budget request?
    In fiscal year 2011 Congress was not able to provide the 
usual level of funding oversight and consistency because of the 
decision by Congress to forgo congressionally directed 
spending. Instead the administration was required to submit a 
work plan detailing how they would spend the funding provided 
by Congress. The administration primarily funded their budget 
requests with the funding included in the various accounts. 
With the additional funding that Congress included, the 
administration chose to fund a number of the line items that 
were funded in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act but not in the fiscal year 2011 
budget request. However, many items funded in fiscal year 2010 
were suspended.
    The General Investigations Program is proposed at 
$104,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is a decrease of 
$22,746,000 from the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. This 
account funds the preauthorization studies necessary to 
determine the Federal interests in a water resource problem or 
need.
    The Construction, General account is proposed at 
$1,480,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. The 85 line items proposed 
for the construction, general account can be broken down as 
follows:
  --Dam safety activities $436,700,000 (29.5 percent);
  --Environmental compliance activities comprise $202,800,000 
        (13.7 percent);
  --Flood control and storm damage reduction activities 
        comprise $243,500,000 (16.5 percent);
  --Coastal or deep draft navigation activities comprise 
        $110,900,000 (7.5 percent);
  --Inland and shallow draft navigation activities comprise 
        $157,400,000 (10.6 percent);
  --Ecosystem or environmental restoration activities comprise 
        $272,600,000 (18.4 percent); and
  --An additional $56,100,000 is proposed for national programs 
        (3.8 percent).
    This is a decrease of $133,822,000 from the fiscal year 
2011 enacted amount. This account funds post authorization 
studies and physical construction of authorized projects.
    The Mississippi River and Tributaries account is proposed 
at $152,000,000 and includes two rescissions totaling 
$58,000,000 that are no longer available. The actual amount 
requested when disregarding these rescissions is $210,000,000. 
This account funds studies, construction and operation and 
maintenance activities along the Mississippi River and 
designated tributaries from Cape Giradeau, Missouri to the Gulf 
of Mexico.
    The Operation and Maintenance account is proposed at 
$2,314,000,000. This is a decrease of $51,759,000 from the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. This account funds post 
authorization studies of operating projects, maintenance of 
Federal facilities and Federal operation of facilities where 
authorized by law.
    The Regulatory Program is proposed at $196,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2012. This is an increase of $6,380,000 over the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted amount to this program that provides 
the funding for the Corps nationwide regulatory roles primarily 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the 
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
    The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly 
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] proposed at 
$109,000,000 was cut by $20,740,000 from the fiscal year 2011 
enacted amount of $129,740,000. This program was transferred to 
the Corps from the Department of Energy, because the Committee 
was concerned with management and cost issues of the program 
within the Energy Department. This is a program that is being 
well-managed by the Corps and should have stable, adequate 
budget resources to continue these radiological clean-up 
activities. This decrease in funding will further stretch out 
the clean-up of these sites.
    The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is 
proposed at $27,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. These funds are 
proposed for readiness and preparedness activities for the 
Corps of Engineers.
    The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 
Works) is proposed as a separate account for $6,000,000. This 
is $1,010,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2011. The 
Committee continues to believe that the Assistant Secretary's 
office should be funded in the Defense appropriations bill. 
However, until such time as this account can be reintegrated 
into that bill, the Committee agrees that the office should be 
funded as a separate account. The Assistant Secretary's duties 
encompass much more than the Civil Works functions of the Corps 
of Engineers and the budget needs of the office should be 
addressed separately.
    The General Expenses [GE] account is proposed at 
$185,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is approximately the 
same as the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. With inflation, 
this is a cut to the management and oversight functions of the 
headquarters of the Corps. The Committee notes that the Corps 
operates one of the most efficient headquarters staffs in the 
National Capital region. Only about 3.5 percent of their 
staffing is at headquarters as opposed to 10 percent or more 
for comparable agencies in the National Capital region.

                      THE NATION'S WATERWAY SYSTEM

    The Nation's waterway system constructed, operated, and 
maintained by the Corps is an incredibly versatile and 
interconnected system providing vital linkages to other modes 
of transportation as well as providing benefits to the national 
economy of more than $7,000,000,000 through transportation 
savings over other available modes of transportation. This 
system has been developed over the past 200 years and is 
starting to show its age. Whether it is lock chambers that are 
long past their design life or lock chambers that need to be 
enlarged to handle increased traffic or harbor and channel 
projects that need to be deepened or enlarged to handle 
contemporary vessel sizes, a major recapitalization of this 
infrastructure is needed, particularly if the Nation is to meet 
the President's goal of doubling exports in the next 5 years. 
Unfortunately only about 18 percent of the administration's 
proposed construction budget is dedicated to navigation 
projects. Despite whatever other efforts may be underway to 
meet this goal, the budget request for the Corps for 
improvements and maintenance of the waterway system falls 
woefully short. It is hard for this Committee to understand how 
exports can be doubled without improvements and adequate 
maintenance to the projects that provide for the transit and 
the exit points for these commodities.

                      INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

    The Committee is deeply trouble by the lack of progress on 
finding a solution to the funding shortfalls in the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund. This fund provides one-half the costs of 
construction and rehabilitation of locks and dams on the Inland 
Waterways System. The system moves nearly 600 million tons of 
cargo annually. To move that amount of cargo on the Nation's 
highways would require an additional 24 million trucks or 5.456 
million rail cars. Moving these same commodities by rail or 
truck would cost billions more in fuel costs as well as 
generating millions of tons of pollution. The Inland Waterways 
System includes 238 lock chambers--138 of which have been in 
operation for more than 50 years. Modernization of this system 
is critical if the Nation expects to continue to benefit from 
this highly fuel efficient and low pollution transportation 
link.
    The previous administration notified this Committee when 
they submitted the fiscal year 2008 budget (February 2007) that 
there was a looming problem with the amount of revenues 
available in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and that a 
legislative proposal would be forthcoming to address the 
situation. That legislative proposal was not presented to 
Congress until April 2008. In the fiscal year 2009 budget 
(February 2008) the previous administration proposed a lockage 
user fee to replace the current fuel tax as a mechanism to 
enhance revenues in the trust fund. This lockage fee was 
roundly criticized as being developed without any input from 
navigation users and was rejected by Congress. Unfortunately 
the administration assumed these revenues as a part of their 
fiscal year 2009 budget request which overstated the amount of 
funding available for cost sharing with these projects. 
Budgeted items could not be funded without these assumed 
revenues leading to curtailment of the work planned for fiscal 
year 2009. For fiscal year 2010-2012, the current 
administration did not make that assumption. Rather they 
aligned their budget request to account for expected revenues 
to be generated by the trust fund in the given budget year. 
This severely curtailed the funding available for modernization 
of the system. However, the budget request has still discussed 
the lockage fee proposal as a way to enhance revenues in the 
trust fund.
    In fiscal year 2010 this Committee recommended that 
waterway users, the Corps and the appropriate authorizing 
committees should work together to find a solution to this 
funding issue. A working group consisting of a combination of 
Corps of Engineers navigation, economics and engineering 
experts and Inland Waterways User Board members from industry, 
worked diligently for over a year to develop a 20-year capital 
investment strategy for the Inland Waterways System. The 
proposal they developed not only enhanced revenues in the trust 
fund, but also provided a schedule to prioritize the work over 
a 20-year period. The plan was submitted to the Congress and 
the administration last year.
    In December 2010, the administration provided their views 
on the capital investment strategy. While the administration 
noted the efforts of the working group, it found fault with 
virtually every facet of the strategy. While the Committee 
recognizes that implementation of some of the proposals in the 
overall strategy would have been problematic, the Committee 
believes that the strategy could have been further modified to 
develop a plan that was acceptable to all parties. 
Unfortunately, the overall tone of the administration response 
was dismissive of the working group's efforts. This is 
especially disappointing since a number of members of the 
working group were employees of the administration. The 
administration's response to the strategy further decided to 
bring in extraneous issues to the Trust Fund discussion 
concerning operation and maintenance costs. Those issues may 
need to be addressed, but not in the scope of determining an 
investment strategy to recapitalize the Inland Waterways 
System.
    We are now in the fifth budget cycle, since this problem 
was identified with no solutions on the horizon. The Committee 
remains committed to cost shared solutions to modernizing the 
Nation's Inland Waterways System. The Committee recognizes that 
this system, constructed over the last 100 years, is critical 
to our national economy. However, the current financing model 
for the Inland Waterways System is barely providing for minimal 
improvements to the current system, much less the modernization 
required if the system is to remain a low cost mode of 
transportation. The Committee urges all of the parties involved 
(including the administration) to reassemble and commit to 
finding a solution that can be proposed as a part of the fiscal 
year 2013 budget submission.
    The Inland Waterways System is far too important to allow 
it to continue to languish with inadequate funding and 
crumbling infrastructure. The Committee is willing to wait for 
a while longer to see if all of the appropriate parties are 
willing to fulfill their responsibilities to resolve this 
issue. If not, this Committee will be forced to act in some 
manner to address the serious funding shortfalls in modernizing 
this system.

         OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR INLAND WATERWAYS

    The administration segregates the Inland Waterways System 
into at least two parts for budgeting purposes. Those that are 
designated as ``low use'' are given considerably lower budget 
priority for maintenance dollars than the remainder of the 
system. But is the administration really saving money by 
segregating the projects in this manner? The ``low use'' 
waterways move more than 50 million tons annually. That 
obviously pales in comparison to the roughly 550 million tons 
moved on the ``high use'' waterways. However, these 50 million 
tons of cargo would still have to be moved somehow, if they are 
not moved by water transportation. The only other candidates 
are truck and rail. It would require 2 million trucks or 
455,000 rail cars to move the same amount of cargo that can be 
moved on 33,500 barges. The shipping costs to the national 
economy to move the same commodities to the same destinations 
would likely increase by at least $500,000,000 by rail or 
$1,500,000,000 by truck. The costs cited do not even begin to 
include the costs to the economy of the increased pollution, 
the likely increase in transportation fatalities or other costs 
that are incurred. If maintenance of all ``low use'' projects 
were fully funded, the Corps budget would be increased by less 
than $200,000,000. Therefore the Committee has to ask, where 
are the savings?
    The Committee urges the administration to reconsider this 
short-sighted budgetary decision in future budget submissions.

                     HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

    The administration has discussed a proposal as a part of 
the fiscal year 2012 budget request to expand the authorized 
uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] so that its 
receipts are available to finance the Federal share of efforts 
carried out by several agencies in support of commercial 
navigation through the Nation's ports. No legislative proposal 
to provide for this expansion has been forthcoming from the 
administration. The administration asserts that work that other 
Federal agencies perform at our Nation's ports would be more 
appropriately charged to the HMTF rather than the general 
treasury. However current law limits funds in the HMTF to be 
used only for maintenance of waterways and harbors.
    Available revenue from the 0.125 percent tax on the value 
of imports at designated harbors amounts to roughly 
$1,500,000,000 annually. These revenues can be utilized for 
maintenance on more than 1,500 ports, harbors and waterways. 
Current expenditures for maintenance of commercial waterways 
and ports average about one-half of the revenue generated. This 
imbalance has led to a surplus in the HMTF of roughly 
$6,000,000,000. However, the Committee is concerned that if the 
administration's proposal was implemented, the current surplus 
in the HMTF would be rapidly exhausted. The funds deposited in 
the HMTF are available through appropriations provided by this 
Committee. As such, these appropriations are subject to the 
same budget authority cap that all other appropriated funds in 
this bill are subject to. To appropriate more funds for 
maintenance of these projects would require the Committee to 
cut funding elsewhere within the bill in order to stay within 
the budget authority cap. With all of the competing demands on 
funding from this Committee, it is impossible to find 
sufficient funds to fully expend revenues that are generated by 
the HMT.
    There are at least two potential solutions to providing 
more funding for these projects. One would be for the 
authorizing committees to modify the HMTF so that it is not 
subject to appropriation by this Committee. In other words, the 
revenues would flow directly to the projects through whatever 
mechanism was legislated. The second potential solution would 
be for the administration to increase the amount of funding 
from the HMTF included in their budget request. This could, if 
the increase did not result in a corresponding decrease 
elsewhere in the bill, lead to a higher allocation cap for the 
bill allowing the Committee to dedicate more budget authority 
to these items. Absent either of these solutions, the Committee 
has provided some additional funding for maintenance of 
projects subject to the HMT. However, the Committee recognizes 
that these additional funds are insufficient to dredge all 
eligible projects to their authorized widths and depths.

                               DAM SAFETY

    The Committee notes that dam safety related activities in 
fiscal year 2012 comprise more than $436,000,000 or 29.5 
percent of the administration's $1,480,000,000 CG request. That 
is a significant part of the construction budget and has been 
consistent for the last several years while overall 
construction funding has declined. The Committee is concerned 
that with the downward trends in administration budgets that 
there will be no room in the budget for anything but safety 
improvements at Corps facilities.
    The Committee does not dispute the need for these dam 
safety improvements. When most of these projects were built, 
they were located in very rural or remote areas with low 
population density. In the intervening years, populations have 
exploded around these projects placing many more people at 
risk. Failure of these structures could potentially wipe out 
entire communities that have grown-up in the valleys below 
these projects.
    The Committee is concerned that sometimes the desire to 
keep the public informed about dam safety risks outstrips the 
available engineering data. A prime case of this is a project 
that reportedly needed immediate fixes of approximately 
$50,000,000 and the public was told that the ultimate fix was 
estimated at more than $500,000,000. This created tremendous 
public angst as to how and when this project would be repaired. 
However, when all of the engineering data was available, it was 
determined that the ultimate fix was less than $50,000,000. The 
Corps is to be commended for a solution that was so cost 
effective versus earlier estimates. However, a lot of angst 
could have been averted if the Corps had been more circumspect 
in when and how the information was shared.

                              LEVEE SAFETY

    Hurricane Katrina was for the Corps was what the Teton Dam 
failure was for the Bureau of Reclamation--the first time a 
major structure designed and constructed by the agencies had 
failed and cost lives. Reclamation became a pioneer in dam 
safety over the intervening 30 years since the Teton Dam 
failure and continue to upgrade their structures across the 
west. The Corps seems to be on a similar albeit accelerated 
track since Hurricane Katrina.
    One positive outcome from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina 
was that the public became more aware of the levees that 
protect their communities. This new awareness resulted in an 
examination of the conditions of these projects. Concurrent 
with this new awareness was the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency map modernization program for flood insurance rate maps. 
With this remapping came the issue of certification of existing 
levees and the need to determine how safe these levees are. All 
of these factors have combined to cause a great deal of 
uncertainty.
    While the Committee would like to believe that engineered 
structures will never fail, the reality is that all engineered 
structures have the potential for failure if the right set of 
circumstances happen at the right time. The Corps' own analysis 
of the levee failures in New Orleans indicate that the failure 
mode that occurred was not unknown to the Corps. However, the 
Corps's designers did not account for that failure mode, 
because it was not thought that type of failure could occur at 
that location.
    Risk is inherent in any man-made structure and the Corps is 
charged with balancing that risk with the costs of the risk 
reduction measures. The cost for risk-free protection is more 
than the Nation has been willing to consider for any project. 
There are always trade-offs. This is especially true with flood 
control structures. There is always a larger flood, or an 
unknown or unaccounted for failure mode that can cause the 
structure to fail. The Committee looks to the Corps to build 
structures to protect people based on the risks that they may 
face and to communicate the residual risk that people protected 
by these structure still face. It should be understood that 
while the structures mitigate risk, they do not eliminate it.
    The Committee fully supports the Corps efforts on levee 
safety. However, the Committee is concerned that the costs to 
repair levees may be overwhelming to local interests. The 
Committee is not suggesting that the Corps should back away 
from its safety culture, only that there should be checks and 
balances to ensure that recommendations are not blindly made in 
the name of safety without determining if the recommendations 
actually provide cost effective safety improvements. The 
Committee encourages the Corps when working with communities on 
levee issues to be cognizant of the costs for proposed fixes 
and the community's ability to fund the repairs.
    The Committee is concerned about what it believes is an 
overly broad reading of the definition of levees provided in 
section 9002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. 
While the definition includes ``structures along canals that 
constrain water flows and are subject to more frequent water 
loadings but that do not constitute a barrier across a 
watercourse'' the Committee does not believe that the intent 
was that the Corps should be setting the standards for 
irrigation canals or canals that convey water for power 
projects. Water in these canals can be shut off in relatively 
short period of time as opposed to a canal failure in a flood 
situation. Also, the Federal agencies responsible for these 
canals have active safety programs in-place and Corps efforts 
would be duplicative. The Committee encourages the Committee on 
Levee Safety to provide categorical exclusions for these canal 
systems.

                  THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOOD OF 2011

    This year, the greatest flood in the history of the 
Mississippi River proved that the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries System could withstand and manage epic flows, and 
the most critical aspect of the 2011 event was what did not 
happen because the system performed as designed.
    Runoff from a snowpack three times greater than normal 
combined with rainfall 10 times greater than average spread out 
over a 200,000-square-mile area within the Mississippi River's 
watershed and produced the Great Flood of 2011.
    Even though there was water in historic proportions, 
significant economic losses and plenty of pain and disruption 
for many people, the real story was the non-event: a massive, 
even unprecedented, discharge that was passed from north of 
Cairo, Illinois, to the Gulf of Mexico without major 
catastrophe.
    This was a non-story due solely to the foresight of the 
Federal Government acting in close partnership with State and 
local officials after what some have called the worst natural 
disaster to strike the United States--the 1927 flood.
    The 1927 disaster which claimed 500 lives, left 600,000 
people homeless and created a pathway of destruction 80 miles 
wide and 1,000 miles long, flooding more than 26,000 square 
miles, or 16.6 million acres of land.
    After this massive flood, it was apparent to thoughtful 
observers that the previous ``levees only'' approach to 
containing the Mississippi River was ill-conceived. Under the 
leadership of the Chief of Engineers, Major General Edgar 
Jadwin, a plan was developed and submitted for approaching 
flood control on the Mississippi River and its tributaries 
which is unprecedented in its scope and foresight. Here are a 
few significant excerpts from Jadwin's report:

    ``The plan heretofore pursued has been the construction of 
levees high enough and strong enough to confine all of the 
flood waters within the river channels. The levees that have 
been constructed are not sufficiently high for such floods as 
are now predicted. The cost of raising and strengthening them 
sufficiently to carry extreme floods would greatly exceed the 
cost of the plan proposed. Furthermore, the extent of the 
disaster which follows a crevasse increases greatly as the 
flood is forced to higher stages by confinement wholly within 
the levee system. The loss of life and property in the recent 
great flood in the alluvial valley followed the breaking of the 
levees which reclaimed the land for the use of man. This 
reclamation had been pushed so far that insufficient room was 
left in the river for the passage of the unprecedented volume 
of flood water. The levees must be strengthened but a halt must 
be called on further material increase in their heights and the 
consequent threat to the inhabitants of the areas they are 
built to protect.
    ``Man must not try to restrict the Mississippi River too 
much in extreme floods. The river will break any plan which 
does this. It must have the room it needs, and to accord with 
its nature must have the extra room laterally.
    ``The plan recommended provides the requisite space for the 
passage of floods, and levees of adequate strength to withstand 
them, so that should a flood recur of the magnitude of the 
flood just experienced, the maximum of record, it would be 
passed out to the gulf without danger to life in the alluvial 
valley, and without damage to property except in the floodways 
allotted for its passage.''

    As faulty as the ``levees only'' plan was for flood 
protection in the Lower Mississippi River Valley, it was 
recognized that the levees had contributed to making the lower 
valley an inhabitable area, a major contributor to the Nation's 
economic security and providing one of the world's great 
producers of food and fiber.
    The Jadwin plan had four major components working together 
in a complementary fashion:
  --Levees;
  --Floodways;
  --Channel improvements to increase the river's carrying 
        capacity at a given stage; and
  --Backwater improvements, including use of backwater areas to 
        store water until it can be safely released.
    Levees had to be set back to reduce bottlenecks and where 
that was not practical floodways were created--reconnecting the 
river to its natural floodplains in today's parlance. The Corps 
developed a comprehensive, systems approach for managing floods 
on the river. A systems approach was necessary because many 
features and components had to work together in a coordinated 
fashion for the overall plan to function. This was decades 
before comprehensive watershed planning was proposed for other 
rivers and streams. Long before the Dutch developed their ideas 
for ``room for the river'' or other advocates proposed letting 
``rivers run free'', the Chief of Engineers was recommending 
space for rivers in 1927 while as a practical matter including 
levees and other features too.
    The Jadwin plan was adopted into law in the 1928 Flood 
Control Act and the major components of the resulting project, 
the Mississippi River and Tributaries [MR&T;] project, remain 
largely unchanged today.
    The epic floodwaters experienced in the valley this year 
surpassed even the Great Flood of 1927 in many locations. The 
Corps of Engineers' response required using every flood control 
resource within the Mississippi River watershed, the third 
largest in the world, to shave height from historic crest 
levels during the flood's most dangerous hours.
    Reservoirs and lakes along the Ohio, Missouri, and upper 
Mississippi Rivers were filled to capacity and exceeded many 
historic levels to help keep the water from overtopping the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries System's flood control 
structures.
    Still, the reservoirs were not enough to stem the steadily 
rising river. Fortunately other safety valves had been built 
into the system. Floodways in Missouri and Louisiana were 
operated to lower peak stages at various points in the river to 
ensure that levees were not overtopped. While operating these 
floodways led to loss of property and livelihood, the damages 
were minimized as these areas were designed to flood, rather 
than having levees overtopped and flooding in an uncontrolled 
manner.
    The floodways served their design purposes. Over a 3-day 
period, activation of the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway 
reduced the forecasted crest near Hickman, Kentucky, by 3.8 
feet and prevented the river from overtopping Federal levees 
protecting cities and towns in Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, 
and Tennessee. The operation of both the Morganza and Bonnet 
Carre Floodways resulted in a 2.5-foot lowering of the river's 
forecasted crest at New Orleans and Baton Rouge, protecting a 
200-mile-long corridor of people and the Nation's commerce. 
History was made with the opening of the Morganza spillway 
because it represented the first time three floodways had been 
operated simultaneously.
    During this flood, the Corps worked closely with the U.S. 
Coast Guard to ensure navigation safety as well as the 
integrity of flood control structures. Even though navigation 
was constrained at times, the channel improvements along the 
river were a critical part of the flood control system during 
this historic event. Without river bend cutoffs, dikes, and 
revetments, the high water would have overwhelmed levees and 
floodwalls and the communities they protect. From Cairo to 
Baton Rouge, flood stage records were broken; however, where 
channel improvements were made--at Memphis, Helena, and 
Arkansas City--river crests stayed well below prior record 
levels.
    As waters from the upper Mississippi and Ohio Rivers 
gathered below the confluence at Cairo, Illinois, on May 3, the 
river grew to monstrous proportions with flows of more than 2.3 
million cubic feet per second, equal to 25 times the amount of 
water flowing over Niagara Falls. During the peak of the flood 
at Memphis, the Mississippi River was more than 8 miles wide. 
Between May 3 and May 19, the river inundated 6.8 million acres 
of farmland in unprotected areas between Cape Girardeau, 
Missouri, and the Head of Passes in Louisiana. These were areas 
which were designed to flood as a part of the Mississippi River 
and Tributaries project. Approximately 10,000 people were 
evacuated due to backwater flooding.
    Despite giving up some ground to allow the river to flex 
its power, the flood control system operated as designed and 
protected almost 10 million acres, thousands of homes, more 
than 4 million people and $200,000,000,000 of infrastructure 
from inundation. By operating the MR&T; system as it was 
designed, including the floodways, the value of this investment 
to our Nation can be counted by what we haven't lost: lives, 
critical infrastructure for the energy industry and more than 
$70,000,000,000 in damages to homes and businesses.
    This was despite flows near or above those experienced 
during the 1927 and 1937 floods. All the MR&T;'s flood control 
features (floodways/spillways, backwater levees, channel 
improvements, levees/floodwalls, gates, pumps, reservoirs and 
relief wells) worked in concert to pass historic flows while 
accommodating the natural tendencies of the mighty Mississippi 
River.
    To date, over the 80 years since passage of the 1928 Flood 
Control Act, the Nation has spent $13,000,000,000 toward the 
planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of the 
project and, to date, the Nation has received a 27-to-1 return 
on that investment, including $350,000,000,000 in flood damages 
prevented. Such astounding figures place the MR&T; project among 
the most successful and cost-effective public works projects in 
the history of the United States.

        THE MISSOURI RIVER FLOOD AND OTHER FLOOD EVENTS OF 2011

    The Mississippi River was not the only natural disaster 
that the Nation faced in 2011. Floods on the Red River of the 
North in North Dakota and Minnesota, on the West Coast, in the 
Ohio Valley and on the Missouri River also caused major damages 
across the Nation. However, the scope of the Missouri River 
flood was second only to the Mississippi River flood of 2011 
and the duration of the flooding along the Missouri River may 
be longer.
    Runoff into the Missouri River Basin above Sioux City, 
Iowa, during the month of June was the highest single runoff 
month since the Corps began keeping detailed records in 1898. 
The previous record monthly runoff was 13.2 million acre feet 
[MAF] in April of 1952. June 2011 runoff into the Missouri 
River Basin above Sioux City was 13.8 MAF, enough water to fill 
the Memorial Stadium in Lincoln, Nebraska, more than 9,700 
times, or once every 1.5 minutes during the entire month.
    The May 2011 runoff into the Missouri River Basin above 
Sioux City was 10.5 MAF, the third highest single month of 
runoff since 1898. The May and June combined runoff totaled 
24.3 MAF, just short of the normal total annual runoff of 24.8 
MAF. Runoff for the calendar year is projected to reach 57.7 
MAF, approximately 230 percent of normal. The previous record 
of 49 MAF was reached in 1997.
    At the beginning of the runoff season, the Corps had 
evacuated all of the floodwaters from last year and the 
reservoirs were prepared to capture the expected 2011 runoff of 
16.3 million acre feet. However, during May, the eastern half 
of Montana received between 300 and 400 percent of normal 
rainfall, more than a year's worth of rain in some locations 
during a 2-week span. Portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
and Wyoming received more than 200 percent of normal rainfall.
    Heavy rain continued into June with significant areas of 
Montana and South Dakota receiving more than 200 percent of 
normal rainfall. Mountain snowpack, which typically peaks 
around April 15, continued to accumulate until early May. To 
date, more than 90 percent of that snowpack has melted and run 
off into the system.
    There are six lakes that comprise the main stem Missouri 
River System. The base of the annual flood control and multiple 
use pool storage is 56.8 MAF. As a system, the Missouri River 
reservoirs can store a total of 73.1 MAF of water. On March 1, 
the system storage level was 57.6 MAF, 0.8 MAF above the base 
of the annual flood control and multiple use pool. The 
additional water in the system was from early plains snowmelt 
runoff in February.
    The dams along the river allow the Corps to hold back 
floodwaters in various communities. With the upper basin 
reservoirs (Fort Peck, Garrison, and Oahe) providing nearly 85 
percent of the flood control storage capacity, they store 
floodwaters until conditions downstream permit release.
    Fort Randall also contains a significant amount of flood 
control storage and serves a major role in reducing flood 
damages on the lower river. The remaining two reservoirs (Big 
Bend and Gavins Point), have very little flood control storage 
available and as a result function more as a pipeline 
regulating the releases from the upstream reservoirs.
    The system is protecting the public from unregulated flows. 
Unregulated flows--which occur when flood waters flow 
uncontrolled in a spillway--would result in significantly more 
damage. In 2010 alone, the system prevented $2,300,000,000 in 
flood damages and reduced peak river stages by 4 to 6 feet in 
various areas. Without the dams, some communities would 
otherwise have experienced flooding and damages similar to what 
the river historically yielded in the late 1940s and early 
1950s.
    To deal with the onslaught of water, the Corps stepped up 
reservoir releases leading to record amounts of water 
downstream. Reservoir releases on the Missouri changed several 
times in the span of a few weeks, due to changing daily 
forecasts and increasing precipitation in Wyoming, Montana, 
North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Corps released as much as 
160,000 cubic feet per second from five of the six main stem 
dams, which resulted in much higher levels on the river 
downstream, on an earlier timeline than originally forecast. 
The releases from the reservoirs set new records and in most 
cases were more than double the previous records.
    Flooding started in late May and has been working its way 
through the Missouri River since that time. It is anticipated 
that flood stages and high water will extend well into the late 
summer and early fall of this year.
    Damages to Corps of Engineers, owned, operated or inspected 
infrastructure, both known and anticipated, due to all of these 
natural disasters is anticipated to exceed $3,000,000,000.

                            PLANNING PROGRAM

    The Committee is pleased that the Corps has taken an in 
depth review of its planning program and is trying to make it 
more responsive to the local sponsors and congress. One of the 
Committee's major concerns was the inconsistent nature across 
the Corps concerning planning efforts. The Corps seems to have 
interpreted this as a desire to shorten the planning process. 
While that is a laudable goal, the Committee recognizes that 
some timeframes within the planning process are statutory and 
cannot be shortened and some studies require a more in-depth 
look. Items such as determining the future without project 
conditions and determining the array of alternatives that 
should be considered require careful evaluation. The Committee 
is more concerned with the inconsistency of the planning 
process across the Corps. Some districts seem rigid and overly 
bureaucratic in their approach to planning. Others are creative 
and accommodating to a fault. In large measure it depends on 
the culture of the Corps district and division. The Corps needs 
to continue to work on this. While a one-size-fits-all approach 
will not work due to the great variations in problems and needs 
throughout the country, more consistency as to how these 
problems and needs are evaluated should be the goal. The 
importance of these study reports cannot be overstated. They 
are the basis from which all of the Corps' work is derived and 
Congress depends heavily on these planning reports to inform 
the decisionmaking process for authorizing and funding these 
infrastructure investments. The Committee will continue to 
monitor the progress of improving the consistency of the 
planning process.

                 CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING

    The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the 
Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional 
direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in 
accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the 
Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control 
may dictate the progress of any given project or study.
    The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation 
provided in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water Development 
Act.

                    NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

    Due to continued declining budgets for the foreseeable 
future, the Committee has concluded that it would not be 
prudent to include any of the new starts proposed in the 
administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request because of the 
outyear requirements that would be incurred. This also includes 
the new starts that the administration proposed in fiscal year 
2011 and included in their fiscal year 2012 budget as 
continuing projects.

                         FLOOD CONTROL CREDITS

    The Committee is concerned about the Secretary's recent 
policy change concerning credits--particularly for flood 
control projects utilizing section 104 of Public Law 99-662. 
The Secretary, in a letter dated May 5, 2011, stated that her 
office will no longer consider applications for section 104 
credit eligibility. The letter goes on to state that section 
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended by section 
2003 of WRDA 2007, provides a more contemporary and 
comprehensive general authority for affording credit for non-
Federal in-kind contributions that covers all water resources 
development projects. The Committee does not dispute that the 
Secretary has the right to set policy based on laws passed by 
Congress. However, the Committee believes that in this case, 
the law may not be as clear as perhaps it should have been. The 
Committee is concerned that under this revised crediting policy 
local projects that could reduce flood damages or improve flood 
protection might not be constructed in a timely matter by local 
interests because they are waiting on the Federal project to 
get to a stage such that credits can be considered under this 
new policy. Of particular concern are cases where local 
communities are trying to restore flood control projects to 
provide 100-year level of protection in order to avoid 
mandatory flood insurance requirements. The Committee does not 
believe it is the Secretary's intent via this policy change to 
cause delays in constructing needed local flood control 
measures that would be integral to a Federal project. 
Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary to consider 
requests for flood control credits on a case-by-case basis to 
ensure that legitimate credits that could be afforded under 
section 104 would still be eligible for inclusion in an 
eventual Federal project.

                      LAKE TAHOE CROSS-CUT BUDGET

    The Committee is aware that considerable funding is being 
expended by various Federal agencies to improve the water 
quality of Lake Tahoe. However, the Committee cannot tell 
whether the various agencies are coordinating their efforts and 
putting these resources to their best uses. Therefore the 
Committee directs the Corps to prepare a cross-cut budget that 
displays the amounts of funding and the types of work being 
expended for the improvement of Lake Tahoe. The initial cross-
cut budget for fiscal year 2012 should be prepared and 
submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
within 120 days of enactment of this act. Subsequent cross-cut 
budgets should be prepared and submitted concurrently with the 
annual budget submission by the Corps.

                          SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE

    Savings and slippage [S&S;] is a budgetary term that 
recognizes that nothing ever goes completely as planned. As 
Corps budgets are initiated some 22 months before they are 
presented to Congress a myriad of changes occur between this 
initial budget submission and when funds are actually 
appropriated. Projects speed up and slow down for a number of 
reasons. Hazardous wastes or a cultural resources site is 
discovered in the project right-of-way; a local sponsor may not 
have his cost share in-place; additional alternatives may need 
to be examined in a study; studies or even projects are 
terminated. All of these things lead to uncertainties which 
impact Corps' budgets.
    When viewed in the historical context of annual Corps 
spending rates, reasonable percentages of S&S; make sense as a 
way to accommodate additional projects needs, even if funding 
is insufficient and has been utilized by the Committee for the 
four major accounts. The Committee directs that the S&S; amount 
in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly across all 
projects within the subaccounts. Upon applying the S&S; amounts, 
normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken to account 
for schedule slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen 
conditions.

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

    Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous 
with earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the 
Corps of Engineers where the majority of the budget request is 
based on individual line item studies and projects. Due to this 
ongoing debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all 
congressionally directed spending requests for fiscal year 
2012. That means that the administration has total discretion 
as to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be 
spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The 
Committee has retained the traditional tables for each of the 
four major accounts delineating the 876 line items requested by 
the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in the 
administration's budget request, the Committee has also 
inserted some additional line item funding under the nationwide 
heading for specific categories of studies or projects that the 
Committee feels are underrepresented in the administration's 
budget request. The Corps has discretion within the guidelines 
provided in each account as to which line items this additional 
funding will be applied to. The Committee has not included any 
congressionally directed spending as defined in section 5(a) of 
rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $126,746,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     104,000,000
House allowance.........................................     104,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     125,000,000

    This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, 
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the 
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and 
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction 
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency 
coordination and research activities.
    The planning program is the entry point for Federal 
involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource 
problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations 
[GI] account amount proposed in the budget is generally the 
same as what has been proposed in previous budgets. Nationwide 
studies and programs consume almost one-half of the 
administration's GI request. This budget asserts that the 
Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing 
studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies.
    The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced 
planning program for fiscal year 2012. However, no new starts 
are included in this recommendation.
    The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the 
planning process. These studies determine if there is a Federal 
interest in a water resource problem or need and if there is a 
cost sharing sponsor willing to move forward with the study. 
The next column represents the feasibility phase of the study. 
These detailed cost-shared studies determine the selected 
alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction. 
The third column represents the preconstruction engineering and 
design phase. These detailed cost-shared designs are prepared 
while the project recommended to Congress is awaiting 
authorization for construction.
    The Committee believes that by segregating the table in 
this manner, more attention will be focused on the various 
study phases, and a more balanced planning program will be 
developed by the administration. As the last two columns are 
generally cost shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost-
sharing sponsors to be a part of the Federal planning process. 
By the same token, it also shows the level of commitment of the 
Federal Government to these cost-sharing sponsors.
    The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance 
are shown on the following table:

                                                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Budget estimate                  House allowance              Committee recommendation
                    Project title                     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         RECON       FEAS       PED       RECON       FEAS       PED       RECON       FEAS       PED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ALASKA

MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK........................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........
YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK...................................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........

                      CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA..........  .........        900  .........  .........        900  .........  .........        900  .........
COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA........................  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA...............................  .........         80  .........  .........         80  .........  .........         80  .........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA...........................  .........        210  .........  .........        210  .........  .........        210  .........
SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY,  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........
 CA..................................................
SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA.........  .........      1,015  .........  .........      1,015  .........  .........      1,015  .........
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA..........................  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........
SOLANA BEACH, CA.....................................  .........        133  .........  .........        133  .........  .........        133  .........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA....................................  .........        339  .........  .........        339  .........  .........        339  .........
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA...........................  .........        177  .........  .........        177  .........  .........        177  .........
YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA..........................        100  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........

                       FLORIDA

LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL..............  .........        293  .........  .........        293  .........  .........        293  .........
MILE POINT, FL.......................................  .........         50  .........  .........         50  .........  .........         50  .........

                       GEORGIA

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA........................  .........  .........        600  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
TYBEE ISLAND, GA.....................................  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........

                        HAWAII

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

                       ILLINOIS

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

                       INDIANA

INDIANA HARBOR, IN...................................  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300

                        KANSAS

TOPEKA, KS...........................................  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100

                      LOUISIANA

BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA................................  .........  .........      2,000  .........  .........      2,000  .........  .........      2,000
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA...................................  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LA........  .........        100  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA.....  .........     10,845      5,400  .........     10,845      5,400  .........     10,845      5,400

                       MARYLAND

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA, AND VA....        250  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD.........  .........  .........        169  .........  .........        169  .........  .........        169

                    MASSACHUSETTS

PILGRIM LAKE, TRURO AND PROVINCETOWN, MA.............  .........        113  .........  .........        113  .........  .........        113  .........

                      MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN AND SD (MINNESOTA  .........        350  .........  .........        350  .........  .........        350  .........
 RI..................................................
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS..............................  .........        330  .........  .........        330  .........  .........        330  .........
MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO.......................  .........        600  .........  .........        600  .........  .........        600  .........

                       MONTANA

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

                    NEW HAMPSHIRE

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

                      NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ.....................  .........        290  .........  .........        290  .........  .........        290  .........
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ...  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ......  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........

                      NEW MEXICO

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

                       NEW YORK

HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ...................  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY.........  .........  .........        170  .........  .........        170  .........  .........        170
WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, BYRAM RIVER BASIN, NY AND  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........
 CT..................................................

                    NORTH CAROLINA

CURRITUCK SOUND, NC..................................  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC................................  .........  .........        450  .........  .........        450  .........  .........        450
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC................  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300

                     NORTH DAKOTA

FARGO, ND--MOORHEAD, MN..............................  .........  .........     12,000  .........  .........     12,000  .........  .........     12,000
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD, AND          .........        433  .........  .........        433  .........  .........        433  .........
 MANITOBA, CANADA....................................

                        OREGON

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR..........  .........        250  .........  .........        250  .........  .........        250  .........
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR..........  .........        213  .........  .........        213  .........  .........        213  .........

                     PENNSYLVANIA

SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, WISSAHICKON CREEK BASIN, PA..  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA......................  .........      1,363  .........  .........      1,363  .........  .........      1,363  .........

                     PUERTO RICO

CANO MARTIN PENA, PR.................................  .........        100  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........

                    SOUTH CAROLINA

EDISTO ISLAND, SC....................................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........

                        TEXAS

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

                       VIRGINIA

CHOWAN RIVER, VA.....................................        124  .........  .........        124  .........  .........        124  .........  .........
JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION     .........        365  .........  .........        365  .........  .........        365  .........
 216)................................................
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA............................  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300
UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, VA.....  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........

                      WASHINGTON

MOUNT ST. HELENS, WA.................................  .........        225  .........  .........        225  .........  .........        225  .........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA.  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES...................        474     31,675     22,389        124     31,475     21,789        124     31,475     21,789

                  NATIONAL PROGRAMS

ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      3,650  .........  .........  .........  .........
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
    REMOTE COASTAL OR SMALL WATERSHEDS...............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........
    SHORE PROTECTION.................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      3,000  .........
    SMALL, REMOTE OR SUBSISTENCE NAVIGATION..........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........
    FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION...........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     11,000  .........
    ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,500  .........
    INLAND NAVIGATION................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      3,000  .........
    COASTAL AND DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     10,500  .........
    MULTI-PURPOSE....................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      4,000  .........
COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES:
    ACCESS TO WATER DATA.............................  .........        350  .........  .........        350  .........  .........        350  .........
    COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.......  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........
    OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS:
        CALFED.......................................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........
        CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM.......................  .........         75  .........  .........         75  .........  .........         75  .........
        COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE         .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........
         AGENCIES....................................
        GULF OF MEXICO...............................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........
        INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........  .........        600  .........  .........        600  .........  .........        600  .........
        INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT.......  .........        955  .........  .........        955  .........  .........        955  .........
        INVENTORY OF DAMS............................  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........
        LAKE TAHOE...................................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........
        PACIFIC NW FOREST CASE.......................  .........         10  .........  .........         10  .........  .........         10  .........
        SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS.......................  .........      1,550  .........  .........      1,550  .........  .........      1,550  .........
    PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES....................  .........      5,000  .........  .........      5,000  .........  .........      5,000  .........
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA:
    AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI-CADD...  .........        350  .........  .........        350  .........  .........        350  .........
    COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION....................  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........
    ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES.......................  .........         75  .........  .........         75  .........  .........         75  .........
    FLOOD DAMAGE DATA................................  .........        220  .........  .........        220  .........  .........        220  .........
    FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES..................  .........      9,000  .........  .........      9,000  .........  .........      9,000  .........
    HYDROLOGIC STUDIES...............................  .........        250  .........  .........        250  .........  .........        250  .........
    INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES......................  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........
    PRECIPITATION STUDIES............................  .........        225  .........  .........        225  .........  .........        225  .........
    REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM       .........         75  .........  .........         75  .........  .........         75  .........
     SUPPORT.........................................
    SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS.....  .........         50  .........  .........         50  .........  .........         50  .........
    STREAM GAGING....................................  .........        600  .........  .........        600  .........  .........        600  .........
    TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS...........................  .........        350  .........  .........        350  .........  .........        350  .........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.............................  .........     17,252  .........  .........     17,252  .........  .........     17,252  .........
OTHER--MISCELLANOUS:
    INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW..........................  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........
    NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...........  .........      3,000  .........  .........      3,000  .........  .........      3,000  .........
    NATIONAL SHORELINE...............................  .........        175  .........  .........        175  .........  .........        175  .........
    PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM.........................  .........      3,100  .........  .........      3,100  .........  .........      3,100  .........
    TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.......................  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........
    WATER RESOURCES PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES........  .........        500  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
    WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY.................  .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL PROGRAMS....................  .........     49,462  .........  .........     50,612  .........  .........     83,462  .........

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........    -11,850  .........
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL..........................................        474     81,137     22,389        124     82,087     21,789        124    103,087     21,789
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS..................              104,000
                                                                   104,000
                                                                   125,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River), 
California.--No funding is included for this new item proposed 
in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
    Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee has not 
funded this item in the GI account as recommended by the 
administration. The Committee has transferred the budget 
request to the Construction, General account where the 
Committee has funded it every year since fiscal year 2009.
    Louisiana Coastal Comprehensive Study, Louisiana.--No 
funding is included for this new item proposed in the fiscal 
year 2012 budget.
    Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan, Maryland, Virginia, 
Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Delaware, and District 
of Columbia.--No funding is included for this new item proposed 
in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
    Cano Martin Pena, Puerto Rico.--No funding is included for 
this new item proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee 
recommendation includes additional funds above the budget 
request to continue ongoing studies. The Committee recommends 
that these funds be used to accelerate high priority flood 
control, storm damage reduction, navigation, and environmental 
restoration studies. The Committee recommends that priority in 
allocating these funds should be towards completing on-going 
studies or for accelerating studies which will enhance the 
Nation's economic development, job growth and international 
competitiveness or for areas that have suffered recent natural 
disasters.
    The administration has complete discretion over how these 
funds are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing 
work that either did not make it into the administration 
request or were inadequately budgeted for. While this 
additional funding is shown in the feasibility column, the 
Corps should utilize these funds in whichever phase of work 
that the funding should be applied to. Within 30 days of 
enactment, the Corps shall provide the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how these 
funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work is 
being accomplished.
    Water Resources Principles and Guideline.--No funding is 
included for this new item first proposed in the fiscal year 
2011 budget and treated as a continuing item in the fiscal year 
2012 budget request.
    Water Resources Priorities Study.--No funding is included 
for this new item first proposed in the fiscal year 2009 
budget. This item has never been funded but was treated as a 
continuing item in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $1,613,822,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   1,480,000,000
House allowance.........................................   1,565,191,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,610,000,000

    This appropriation includes funds for construction, major 
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources 
development projects having navigation, flood and storm damage 
reduction, water supply, hydroelectric, environmental 
restoration, and other attendant benefits to the Nation. The 
construction and major rehabilitation for designated projects 
for inland and costal waterways will derive one-half of the 
funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Funds to be 
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied 
to cover the Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal 
Facilities Program.
    The administration request for the Construction, General 
account is $1,480,000,000, a decrease of $133,822,000 from the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. By the Committee's estimate, 
less than 60 percent of the needed funding is available in this 
account. Construction levels will slip due to constrained 
funding and benefits to the national economy will be deferred. 
The Committee is concerned that this lack of investment will 
inevitably lead to another Katrina-style disaster somewhere in 
the Nation, whether it is a catastrophic failure on the Inland 
Waterways System or overwhelmed incomplete or damaged flood 
control or shore protection infrastructure. The aftermath of 
Hurricane Katrina should have taught us, if nothing else, that 
more robust investment before the fact would have led to 
considerably smaller payouts after the disaster. Yet, based on 
the budget requests in the intervening 6 years, it is obvious 
that no lesson has been learned.
    The Committee recommendation includes $1,610,000,000 in new 
budget authority for this account. The Committee recognizes 
that this is considerably less than the needs in the program, 
but is the best that can be accomplished in this constrained 
fiscal environment.
    The Committee deleted the new construction starts requested 
by the administration as sufficient funding does not exist in 
the current budget nor is there reasonable assurance that 
sufficient funds will be available in the future to accommodate 
these new items as well as ongoing work.
    Continuing Authorities Program [CAP].--The Continuing 
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific 
authorizing legislation) includes projects for flood control 
(section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline protection 
(section 14), beach erosion control (section 103), mitigation 
of shore damages (section 111), navigation projects (section 
107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic ecosystem 
restoration (section 206), beneficial uses of dredged material 
(section 204), and project modifications for improvement of the 
environment (section 1135). The Committee rejects the 
administration proposal to transfer funds from other sections 
of the CAP to only fund sections 205, 206 and 1135 for fiscal 
year 2012. The Corps has told the Committee on numerous 
occasions that there is a considerable backlog of ongoing work 
in all sections of the CAP program. For that reason the 
Committee is surprised that the administration would propose to 
carry over funding to fiscal year 2012 for this ill considered 
proposal when the funding proposed for carryover was previously 
provided to address this backlog. The Committee believes these 
funds should be expended for the CAP sections for which they 
were appropriated and should be executed as quickly as 
possible. The Committee continues to believe that the various 
sections of the CAP program provide a useful tool for the Corps 
to undertake small localized projects without being encumbered 
by the lengthy study and authorization phases typical of most 
Corps projects.
    Even though there was no budget request for funding in the 
CAP program for fiscal year 2012, the Committee has included a 
total of $30,000,000 spread over the nine CAP sections for work 
in fiscal year 2012. The Committee believes that it was an 
imprudent and shortsighted decision by the administration to 
not propose any funding for this program. The Committee urges 
the administration to execute the program laid out by the 
Committee and include funding for this program in future 
budgets in the same manner as in the past.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

                                    CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Budget           House         Committee
                              Item                                   estimate        allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA..................          25,548          23,149          25,548
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA.........          21,000          19,028          21,000
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA.................           1,000             906           1,000
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA......................           8,250           7,475           8,250
HAMILTON CITY, CA...............................................           8,000  ..............  ..............
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA..........................           9,500           8,607           9,500
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA............................             350             317             350
SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA...........................           3,500           3,171           3,500
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA....................          10,000           9,061          10,000
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA....................................          20,500          18,575          20,500
SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA...........................................           2,078           1,882           2,078
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA.............................           5,000           4,530           5,000
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)........................          18,000          18,000          18,000
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA............................................           2,000           1,812           2,000

                             FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY, CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................             350             317             350
DADE COUNTY, FL.................................................          15,202          13,774          15,202
DUVAL COUNTY, FL................................................             100              90             100
FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL...........................................             350             317             350
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL).......................          85,000          85,000          85,000
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.........................................           7,000           6,342           7,000
MANATEE COUNTY, FL..............................................             100              90             100
NASSAU COUNTY, FL...............................................             700             634             700
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL.........................         162,724         130,000         162,724
ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, FL...........................................             350             317             350
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................           3,000           2,718           3,000

                             GEORGIA

LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA..................................              45              40              45
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC......................           3,200           2,899           3,200
SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, GA AND SC.......................           5,040           4,566           5,040
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA...................................  ..............             543             600

                            ILLINOIS

ALTON TO GALE ORGANIZED LEVEE DISTRICTS, IL AND MO..............             500             453             500
CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR)..........           2,250           2,038           2,250
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL...........          13,500          21,805          24,065
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL...........................................           1,000             906           1,000
EAST ST. LOUIS, IL..............................................           1,350           1,223           1,350
LOCK AND DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (MAJOR REHAB)............             100              90             100
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL..............................          12,000          10,873          12,000
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY....................         150,000         135,915         150,000
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO, AND........          18,150          16,445          18,150
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, DEFICIENCY CORRECTION AND RECONSTRUCTION......             830             752             830

                             INDIANA

LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN........................................           9,000           7,100           9,000

                              IOWA

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO,..........          72,888          72,888          72,888

                             KANSAS

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO...................................           4,000           3,624           4,000

                            KENTUCKY

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.............................         132,000         132,000         132,000

                            LOUISIANA

LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)..............           5,500           4,983           5,500
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA................          10,620  ..............  ..............

                            MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE, MD..................................................           1,000             906           1,000
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA.......................           5,000           4,530           5,000
POPLAR ISLAND, MD...............................................          12,000          10,873          12,000

                          MASSACHUSETTS

MUDDY RIVER, MA.................................................           4,000           3,624           4,000

                            MINNESOTA

CROOKSTON, MN...................................................           1,250           1,132           1,250

                            MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO.............................           3,000           2,718           3,000
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO.............................................          32,900          32,900          32,900
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS.........................................             500             453             500
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS..........           7,320           6,632           7,320
MONARCH--CHESTERFIELD, MO.......................................           1,351           1,224           1,351
ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO..................................             100              90             100

                           NEW JERSEY

GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ.......................             500             453             500
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ......................           7,650           6,931           7,650
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY (PORT MONMOUTH), NJ..............           3,000           2,718           3,000
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ..................           6,000           5,436           6,000

                           NEW MEXICO

RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE,...........          10,000           9,061          10,000

                            NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, NY.......             100              90             100
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY..........................           1,350           1,223           1,350
LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY...........................................             300             271             300
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ.......................          65,014          58,909          65,014

                              OHIO

DOVER DAM, MUSKINGUM RIVER, OH (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE)...........           5,000           5,000           5,000

                            OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE, OK.................................................          11,100          11,100          11,100

                             OREGON

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA...........           2,000           1,812           2,000
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA...........           4,200           3,805           4,200

                          PENNSYLVANIA

EMSWORTH LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, PA..........................           3,000           3,000           3,000
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3, AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA...............           1,000           1,000           1,000
PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT)..........................           1,500           1,359           1,500

                           PUERTO RICO

PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR.................................          45,000          40,774          45,000
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............................................           7,000           6,342           7,000

                            TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................          78,700          78,700          78,700

                              TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX........................................           3,000           2,718           3,000
HOUSTON--GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX......................             600             543             600
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN (WHARTON/ONION), TX..................           5,000  ..............  ..............

                            VIRGINIA

LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, VA, W..........           5,000           4,530           5,000
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA..................          27,400          24,827          27,400
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA..................           1,075             974           1,075

                           WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, AND ID..................         128,405         128,405         128,405
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA..............................           2,060           1,866           2,060
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA,...........           1,500           1,500           1,500
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.........................           6,500           5,889           6,500
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................           1,000             906           1,000

                          WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV..............................................          70,000          70,000          70,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS........................................       1,423,950       1,320,479       1,411,495

                        NATIONAL PROGRAMS

ADDITIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION.............  ..............         124,600  ..............
ADDITIONAL NAVIGATION...........................................  ..............         118,400  ..............
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
    SHORE PROTECTION............................................  ..............  ..............          40,000
    FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION......................................  ..............  ..............          50,000
    NAVIGATION..................................................  ..............  ..............          22,000
    MISCELLANEOUS...............................................  ..............  ..............           7,000
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE PROJECTS............  ..............  ..............          15,000
    ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS........................  ..............  ..............          40,000
    HYDROPOWER PROJECTS.........................................  ..............  ..............          15,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM...................................  ..............  ..............           4,000
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT REQUIRING SPECIFIC:
    AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206).................  ..............  ..............           5,000
    BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTIONS 20............  ..............  ..............           3,000
    EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION).....  ..............  ..............           2,000
    FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)........................  ..............  ..............           5,000
    NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111).................  ..............  ..............           2,500
    NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107)............................  ..............  ..............           3,000
    PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT....  ..............  ..............           5,000
    SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103)..............................  ..............  ..............           4,000
    SNAGGING AND CLEARING (SECTION 208).........................  ..............  ..............             500
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM.............          37,155          37,155          37,155
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION.........................................          15,000          13,591          15,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE.....................              70              63              70
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE.....................             825             747             825
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106-457)................           2,000  ..............           2,000
PERIODIC REVIEW OF BCRS.........................................           1,000             906           1,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL PROGRAMS...............................          56,050         295,462         279,050

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE............................................  ..............  ..............         -80,545
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL...............................       1,480,000       1,615,941       1,610,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hamilton City, California.--No funding is included for this 
new item proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
    Napa River, Salt Marsh Restoration, California.--This 
project was a new start construction project proposed by the 
administration as a part of the fiscal year 2010 budget. 
Congress agreed with this new start proposal and provided 
$100,000 for this project in the fiscal year 2010 conference 
report. A total of $17,250,000 was included in the work plan 
developed by the administration as directed in the fiscal year 
2011 continuing resolution. An additional $9,500,000, the 
administration's fiscal year 2012 request, is included in this 
report.
    However, it has come to the Committee's attention that the 
administration has directed the Corps to only budget for the 
parts of the authorization that the administration supports and 
that no funds can be budgeted for parts of the project that the 
administration does not support. The Committee believes that if 
the administration did not support portions of the project as 
authorized, the project should have never been a part of the 
administration budget request, much less one of the 
administration proposals as a new start. The Committee believes 
that if the administration puts forth a project as a new start 
in their budget request, it should have the administration's 
unqualified support and by definition, should have risen to the 
top of all other potential new starts available for the 
administration to choose from. If the authorization was flawed, 
in the administration's view, then how could the project have 
risen to the top of the list? This is a clear case of the 
administration trying to budget for what they wish had been 
authorized, rather than what was actually authorized.
    The Committee's position is that the administration (by 
budgeting) and Congress (by appropriating funds) has committed 
to the project as authorized in section 101(12) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007 regardless of what the 
administration may have wanted. The project partnership 
agreement executed between the Government and the non-Federal 
sponsor delineates the project as authorized, not the project 
that the administration would like to have been authorized. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to utilize any 
unspent funds that have been previously provided for this 
project as well as those included in the administration's 
fiscal year 2012 budget request, provided in this bill, for all 
of the authorized project features as appropriate to the 
current stage of construction. Further, the Committee directs 
that future budget submissions should not selectively budget 
for parts of this project, but should include all authorized 
project features as appropriate for the work planned for that 
budget request.
    Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The administration 
budget request for this item that was proposed in the GI 
account has been moved to this account where it has been funded 
for the last 3 fiscal years.
    Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, 
Illinois.--After release of the fiscal year 2012 budget 
justifications, the Corps informed the Committee that the 
funding proposed in the O&M; account for this project was 
actually needed in this account. The Committee has accommodated 
this change and provided no funding in the O&M; account.
    Raritan and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New Jersey.--The 
Committee recommendation includes the budget request for this 
project as proposed by the administration even though the 
administration labeled this project as a ``previously unfunded 
item'' in their budget request. The Committee does not consider 
this as a new start as it was provided funding in the fiscal 
year 2010 Energy and Water Act. The Committee's view is that 
since the Congress enacted the fiscal year 2010 bill and the 
President signed the bill into law, that this project has been 
initiated.
    Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.--
No funding is included for this new item first proposed in the 
fiscal year 2011 budget and treated by the administration as a 
continuing project in fiscal year 2012.
    Onion Creek, Lower Colorado River, Texas.--No funding is 
included for this new item first proposed in the fiscal year 
2011 budget and treated by the administration as a continuing 
project for fiscal year 2012.
    Norfolk Harbor, Craney Island, Virginia.--This project, 
much like the one mentioned previously, was a new start 
construction project proposed by the administration as a part 
of the fiscal year 2010 budget. Congress agreed with this new 
start proposal and provided $100,000 for this project in the 
fiscal year 2010 conference report. $1,000,000 was included in 
the work plan developed by the administration as directed in 
the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. An additional 
$27,400,000, the administration's fiscal year 2012 request, is 
included in this report.
    However, it has come to the Committee's attention that the 
administration has directed the Corps to only budget for the 
parts of the authorization that the administration supports and 
that no funds can be budgeted for parts of the project that the 
administration does not support. The Committee believes that if 
the administration did not support portions of the project as 
authorized, the project should have never been a part of the 
administration, budget request, much less one of the 
administration proposals as a new start. The Committee believes 
that if the administration puts forth a project as a new start 
in their budget request, it should have the administration's 
unqualified support and by definition, should have risen to the 
top of all other potential new starts available for the 
administration to choose from. If the authorization was flawed, 
in the administration's view, then how could the project have 
risen to the top of the list? This is a clear case of the 
administration trying to budget for what they wish had been 
authorized, rather than what was actually authorized.
    The Committee's position is that the administration (by 
budgeting) and Congress (by appropriating funds) has committed 
to the project as authorized in section 101(45) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007 regardless of what the 
administration may have wanted. The project partnership 
agreement executed between the Government and the non-Federal 
sponsor delineates the project as authorized, not the project 
that the administration would like to have been authorized. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to utilize any 
unspent funds that have been previously provided for this 
project as well as those included in the administration's 
fiscal year 2012 budget request, provided in this bill, for all 
of the authorized project features as appropriate to the 
current stage of construction. Further, the Committee directs 
that future budget submissions should not selectively budget 
for parts of this project, but should include all authorized 
project features as appropriate for the work planned for that 
budget request.
    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee 
recommendation includes additional funds above the budget 
request to continue ongoing projects and activities. The 
Committee recommends that these funds be used for flood 
control, storm damage reduction, navigation, environmental 
restoration, environmental infrastructure, and miscellaneous 
projects. The Committee recommends that priority in allocating 
these funds should be towards completing on-going projects, 
accelerating projects which will enhance the Nation's economic 
development, job growth and international competitiveness or 
those where the local sponsor has the funding in-place for 
their share of the construction contemplated with the funds 
available.
    The administration has complete discretion over how these 
funds are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing 
work that either did not make it into the administration 
request or were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 days of 
enactment, the Corps shall provide the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how these 
funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work is 
being accomplished.
    Continuing Authorities Program.--For each Continuing 
Authorities Program [CAP] section, available funds shall be 
allocated utilizing this sequence of steps until the funds are 
exhausted:
  --capability-level funds for ongoing projects that have 
        executed cost-sharing agreements for the applicable 
        phase;
  --capability-level funds for projects that are ready for 
        execution of new cost-sharing agreements for the 
        applicable phase and for which Corps headquarters 
        authorizes execution of the agreements;
  --funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other projects 
        previously funded for the applicable phase but not 
        ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements; and
  --funds as permitted by Corps policies, for projects not 
        previously funded for the applicable phase.
    Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate 
Field Operating Agency [FOA] for projects requested by that 
FOA. If the FOA finds that the study/project for which funds 
were requested cannot go forward, the funds are to be returned 
to Corps headquarters to be reallocated based on the nationwide 
priority listing. In no case should the FOA retain these funds 
for use on a different project than the one for which the funds 
were requested without the explicit approval of the Corps' 
headquarters.
    Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for 
each CAP section, funds shall be allocated to the projects in 
that section that rank high according to the following factors: 
high overall performance based on outputs; high percent 
fiscally complete; and high unobligated carry-in. Section 14 
funds shall be allocated to the projects that address the most 
significant risks and adverse consequences, irrespective of 
phase or previous funding history.
    The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending 
and terminating inactive projects. Suspended projects shall not 
be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in 
writing its support for the project and establishes its 
willingness and capability to execute its project 
responsibilities.
    In order to provide a mix of studies, design and 
construction within each CAP section, the Corps is directed to 
divide the funding generally 80/20 between the Design and 
Implementation and the Feasibility phases within each 
authority. The Chief of Engineers shall provide a report to the 
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of 
this act detailing how funds will be distributed to the 
individual items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal 
year. The Chief shall also provide an annual report at the end 
of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the backlog 
of projects. The report should include the completions and 
terminations as well as progress of ongoing work.
    The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects 
in all sections as funding allows. New projects may be 
initiated after an assessment is made that such projects can be 
funded over time based on historical averages of the 
appropriation for that section and after prior approval by the 
Committees on Appropriations.

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

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $241,906,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     152,000,000
House allowance.........................................     210,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     250,000,000

    This appropriation funds planning, construction, and 
operation and maintenance activities associated with water 
resource projects located in the lower Mississippi River Valley 
from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

                                        MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Budget           House         Committee
                              Item                                   estimate        allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, TN............             100             100             100
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, INVESTIGATIONS..................................             100             100             100

                          CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN.............          45,570          45,570          45,570
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN........          24,180          24,180          24,180
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA..........................           1,900           1,900           1,900
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA...........................................           6,300           6,300           6,300
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION....................................          77,950          77,950          77,950

                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN.............          61,230          61,230          61,230
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR..............................             122             122             122
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR...............................             189             189             189
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR............................             223             223             223
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR............................             150             150             150
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN........           7,951           7,951           7,951
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO....................................           4,174           4,174           4,174
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA................           1,884           1,884           1,884
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR.......................................             896             896             896
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL...............................             110             110             110
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY...............................              60              60              60
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA..........................           1,468           1,468           1,468
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA...........................................           8,918           8,918           8,918
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA.............................              42              42              42
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA..............................              48              48              48
BONNET CARRE, LA................................................           2,145           2,145           2,145
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA...............................             697             697             697
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA..........................             377             377             377
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA....................................             438             438             438
OLD RIVER, LA...................................................           6,954           6,954           6,954
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA...........................           2,473           2,473           2,473
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS...........................................              18              18              18
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS...............................             109             109             109
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS............................................              32              32              32
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.................................           4,606           4,606           4,606
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS............................             185             185             185
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS......................................           4,386           4,386           4,386
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS......................................             807             807             807
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS...................................           4,511           4,511           4,511
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS......................................           1,019           1,019           1,019
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS....................................           5,687           5,687           5,687
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M. WHITTINGTON AUXILARY CHANNEL, MS...........             378             378             378
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS...........................             517             517             517
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS.....................................             731             731             731
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO...............................             125             125             125
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO.............................................           4,167           4,167           4,167
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN...............................              60              60              60
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN...............................           1,394           1,394           1,394
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.......................         130,248         130,248         130,248

                         REMAINING ITEMS

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA..............................             500             500             500
MAPPING.........................................................           1,202           1,202           1,202
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK
    DREDGING....................................................  ..............  ..............           5,000
    FLOOD CONTROL...............................................  ..............  ..............          25,000
    MISCELLANEOUS...............................................  ..............  ..............          20,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS.................................           1,702           1,702          51,702

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE............................................  ..............  ..............         -10,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES....................         210,000         210,000         250,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Post-2011 Flood Studies.--The Committee recognizes that the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries project performed as designed 
during the 2011 flood, but also recognizes that the project has 
not yet been completed. The flooding that did occur within the 
project area could have been mitigated by remaining features 
yet to be constructed. The Committee directs the Secretary to 
provide a report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment 
of this act that describes the construction features that 
remain and the costs of those features, a report on the prior 
studies that proposed to make improvements to the system, and 
to evaluate, within existing authorities, the issue of 
backwater flooding that occurred in this year's flood and what 
can be done in the future to mitigate this issue.
    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee 
recommendation includes additional funds above the budget 
request to continue ongoing studies projects or maintenance. 
The Committee recommends that these funds be used for flood 
control, navigation, water supply, ground water protection, 
waterfowl management, bank stabilization and environmental 
restoration work. The Committee recommends that priority in 
allocating these funds should be towards completing on-going 
work or for accelerating work which will enhance the region and 
Nation's economic development, job growth and international 
competitiveness or for areas that have suffered recent natural 
disasters.
    The administration has complete discretion over how these 
funds are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing 
work primarily along the Mississippi River tributaries that 
either did not make it into the administration request or were 
inadequately budgeted. While this additional funding is shown 
under remaining items, the Corps should utilize these funds in 
whichever phase of work that the funding is applied to. Within 
30 days of enactment, the Corps shall provide the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how 
these funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work 
is being accomplished.

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $2,365,759,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   2,314,000,000
House allowance.........................................   2,368,925,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,360,000,000

    This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and 
related activities at the water resources projects that the 
Corps operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists 
of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other 
facilities, as authorized in the various river and harbor, 
flood control, and water resources development acts. Related 
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of 
completed projects where appropriate, removal of sunken 
vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce 
statistics.
    Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory 
gets more expensive every year, however, it is consistently 
underfunded. If this trend continues, the Corps will not be 
able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its 
projects. The Committee has maintained its tradition of 
supporting what the budget request terms as ``low use harbors 
and waterways''. The Committee recognizes the importance of 
these facilities and will continue to provide funding for them. 
The Committee is concerned about the general downward trend in 
the administration's O&M; request. Since fiscal year 2010, the 
administration's budget proposal has decreased by $190,000,000 
for operation and maintenance. The Committee understands that 
the O&M; budget fluctuates from year to year due to periodic 
maintenance dredging requirements, however, the general trend 
should be for this budget to increase. Nearly 75 percent of the 
O&M; budget consists of labor and dredging costs in most years. 
Labor costs rarely decrease for the Corps as it takes roughly 
the same amount of manpower to operate Corps projects on a 
yearly basis. That means that when the budget request is 
reduced as it is for fiscal year 2012, the only areas available 
to reduce are dredging and real maintenance items.
    This is the wrong trend for this program. The Corps is to 
be commended for managing to keep as much of their 
infrastructure operable as they have with the O&M; budgets that 
have been put forward and enacted. The Committee urges the 
administration to commit to a more realistic budget for O&M; in 
future fiscal years.
    The budget request and the Committee recommendation are 
shown on the following table:

                                  CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Budget           House         Committee
                              Item                                   estimate        allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             ALABAMA

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL.....................             250             245             250
ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL.........................................          13,120          12,857          13,120
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL..........................          21,429          21,000          21,429
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL..................................           5,335           5,228           5,335
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL...............................              30              29              30
MOBILE HARBOR, AL...............................................          23,360          22,892          23,360
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL...................................             100              98             100
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL............           1,847           1,810           1,847
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS.........................          23,141          22,678          23,141
WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA........................           7,744           7,589           7,744

                             ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK............................................          14,000          13,720          14,000
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK...........................................           2,948           2,889           2,948
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK...........................................             987             967             987
HOMER HARBOR, AK................................................             453             443             453
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK...............................             194             190             194
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK............................................             420             411             420
NOME HARBOR, AK.................................................           1,066           1,044           1,066
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK...................................             500             490             500

                             ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ..................................................           1,758           1,722           1,758
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ...............................              87              85              87
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ............................................           1,307           1,280           1,307
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ.............................              48              47              48
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ...........................................             288             282             288

                            ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR.................................................           5,784           5,668           5,784
BLAKELY MT. DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR..............................           7,241           7,096           7,241
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR..........................................           1,854           1,816           1,854
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR............................................           6,050           5,929           6,050
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.....................................           7,914           7,755           7,914
DEGRAY LAKE, AR.................................................           5,712           5,597           5,712
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR................................................           1,687           1,653           1,687
DIERKS LAKE, AR.................................................           1,421           1,392           1,421
GILLHAM LAKE, AR................................................           1,345           1,318           1,345
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR...........................................           5,654           5,540           5,654
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR..............................             100              98             100
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR...............................             397             389             397
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR.............          26,610          26,077          26,610
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR...............................................           2,558           2,506           2,558
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR...................................           4,342           4,255           4,342
NIMROD LAKE, AR.................................................           2,182           2,138           2,182
NORFORK LAKE, AR................................................           9,091           8,909           9,091
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA..............................           7,451           7,301           7,451
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR..............................           6,064           5,942           6,064
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR...................................               8               7               8

                           CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA............................................           2,337           2,290           2,337
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA...............................           2,032           1,991           2,032
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA......................................             525             514             525
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA...........................           3,647           3,574           3,647
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA...................           5,624           5,511           5,624
FARMINGTON DAM, CA..............................................             470             460             470
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA....................................           2,272           2,226           2,272
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.....................................           2,800           2,744           2,800
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA...............................           3,854           3,776           3,854
ISABELLA LAKE, CA...............................................           1,721           1,686           1,721
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA............................           5,083           4,981           5,083
MARINA DEL REY, CA..............................................           3,170           3,106           3,170
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA.......................................             399             391             399
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA............................................             332             325             332
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA............................................           1,590           1,558           1,590
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA..............................................           2,456           2,406           2,456
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA........................           1,897           1,859           1,897
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA..............................................           8,755           8,579           8,755
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA............................................           1,520           1,489           1,520
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA..............................................           3,291           3,225           3,291
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA...................................           1,710           1,675           1,710
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA.............................................           8,146           7,983           8,146
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA...........           1,299           1,273           1,299
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA......................             125             122             125
SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA............................................           3,800           3,724           3,800
SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA.....................             986             966             986
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL)................           1,979           1,939           1,979
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA........................................           2,548           2,497           2,548
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA.........................           3,746           3,671           3,746
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA........................           3,470           3,400           3,470
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA.......................................           3,530           3,459           3,530
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA........................................           2,040           1,999           2,040
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA.............................           1,648           1,615           1,648
SUCCESS LAKE, CA................................................           2,564           2,512           2,564
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA..........................................           2,770           2,714           2,770
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA...................................           2,346           2,299           2,346
VENTURA HARBOR, CA..............................................           2,805           2,748           2,805
YUBA RIVER, CA..................................................              97              95              97

                            COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO.............................................             569             557             569
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO..............................................           1,269           1,243           1,269
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO...........................................           1,162           1,138           1,162
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO...............................             260             254             260
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO.......................................           2,629           2,576           2,629
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO.............................             740             725             740
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO...............................................           1,701           1,666           1,701

                           CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT.............................................             582             570             582
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT........................................             641             628             641
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT..........................................             376             368             376
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT..............................................           1,022           1,001           1,022
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT...............................             368             360             368
LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT......................................           1,000             980           1,000
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT.......................................             672             658             672
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT.......................................             437             428             437
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT...................................             850             833             850
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT..................................             463             453             463
THOMASTON DAM, CT...............................................             839             822             839
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT..........................................             686             672             686

                            DELAWARE

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE...............................              15              14              15
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY.........          18,648          18,275          18,648
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE...................................             105             102             105
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE...........................................           3,250           3,185           3,250

                      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC...............................             154             150             154
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL)................             875             857             875
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC...................................              40              39              40
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC...........................................              25              24              25

                             FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................           5,150           5,047           5,150
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL................................          15,063          14,761          15,063
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL...............................           1,350           1,323           1,350
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.........................................           6,500           6,370           6,500
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL, AND GA........           8,159           7,995           8,159
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL.........................................           2,008           1,967           2,008
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL...........................................           2,850           2,793           2,850
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL..........................................           2,015           1,974           2,015
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL......................................           2,000           1,960           2,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL...................................           1,575           1,543           1,575
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL...................................           3,750           3,675           3,750
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL.............................              32              31              32
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL.........................           5,276           5,170           5,276
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................           6,287           6,161           6,287

                             GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA..............................................           6,335           6,208           6,335
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL AND........             638             625             638
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................           3,000           2,940           3,000
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA...........................           8,346           8,179           8,346
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA........................................           7,722           7,567           7,722
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC........................................          10,549          10,338          10,549
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA..............              85              83              85
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA...............................             141             138             141
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC................................           9,786           9,590           9,786
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA...................................             149             146             149
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA, AND SC......................           7,305           7,158           7,305
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.............................................          17,452          17,102          17,452
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA................................              85              83              85
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL..............................           7,857           7,699           7,857

                             HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI........................................             266             260             266
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI...............................             984             964             984
NAWILIWILI HARBOR, HI...........................................             250             245             250
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI...................................             931             912             931

                              IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID............................................           1,404           1,375           1,404
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID..................................           2,695           2,641           2,695
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID...............................             312             305             312
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID.............................................           2,918           2,859           2,918
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID.............................             514             503             514

                            ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN.............................           3,983           3,903           3,983
CARLYLE LAKE, IL................................................           5,340           5,233           5,340
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL..............................................           2,158           2,114           2,158
CHICAGO RIVER, IL...............................................             523             512             523
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL...........          10,565  ..............  ..............
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL.......................................             432             423             432
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN......................          31,937          31,298          31,937
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN......................           2,181           2,137           2,181
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL...............................           1,945           1,906           1,945
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL..................................           1,539           1,508           1,539
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.....................................             725             710             725
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL............................................           6,865           6,727           6,865
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS........          49,748          48,753          49,748
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS........          23,582          23,110          23,582
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL...................................             111             108             111
REND LAKE, IL...................................................           5,436           5,327           5,436
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL....................             689             675             689

                             INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN.............................................           1,155           1,131           1,155
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN.......................................             176             172             176
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN............................................           1,087           1,065           1,087
CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN........................................           1,178           1,154           1,178
INDIANA HARBOR, IN..............................................           6,675           6,541           6,675
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN...............................             645             632             645
J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN........................................           2,270           2,224           2,270
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN...........................................           1,231           1,206           1,231
MONROE LAKE, IN.................................................           1,252           1,226           1,252
PATOKA LAKE, IN.................................................           1,118           1,095           1,118
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN...................................             185             181             185
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN..............................................           1,073           1,051           1,073
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN....................             129             126             129

                              IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA.............................................           4,298           4,212           4,298
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA...............................             552             540             552
MISSOURI RIVER-SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO, AND.........           6,199           6,075           6,199
RATHBUN LAKE, IA................................................           2,184           2,140           2,184
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA..............................           4,639           4,546           4,639
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA............................................           5,275           5,169           5,275

                             KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS................................................           2,140           2,097           2,140
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS..........................................           2,237           2,192           2,237
EL DORADO LAKE, KS..............................................           1,086           1,064           1,086
ELK CITY LAKE, KS...............................................             871             853             871
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS.............................................           1,308           1,281           1,308
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS..............................................             849             832             849
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS...............................             339             332             339
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS..............................           1,453           1,423           1,453
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS..............................................           1,619           1,586           1,619
MARION LAKE, KS.................................................           1,800           1,764           1,800
MELVERN LAKE, KS................................................           2,068           2,026           2,068
MILFORD LAKE, KS................................................           2,073           2,031           2,073
PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS...............................           1,323           1,296           1,323
PERRY LAKE, KS..................................................           2,358           2,310           2,358
POMONA LAKE, KS.................................................           2,371           2,323           2,371
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS.............................             150             147             150
TORONTO LAKE, KS................................................             699             685             699
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS...........................................           2,239           2,194           2,239
WILSON LAKE, KS.................................................           1,607           1,574           1,607

                            KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN.........................          10,091           9,889          10,091
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY...........................................           2,362           2,314           2,362
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY............................................           1,655           1,621           1,655
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY...............................................           1,615           1,582           1,615
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY.............................................           1,765           1,729           1,765
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY...............................................             990             970             990
DEWEY LAKE, KY..................................................           1,792           1,756           1,792
FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY AND IN..................              21              20              21
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY...............................................           1,969           1,929           1,969
GRAYSON LAKE, KY................................................           1,515           1,484           1,515
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.....................................           2,280           2,234           2,280
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY............................................           2,222           2,177           2,222
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY...............................             865             847             865
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY..............................................              10               9              10
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY...........................................           1,589           1,557           1,589
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY...........................................           1,224           1,199           1,224
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY..........................             240             235             240
NOLIN LAKE, KY..................................................           2,487           2,437           2,487
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, AND OH...................          33,561          32,889          33,561
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA, AND WV........           5,582           5,470           5,582
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY............................................           1,195           1,171           1,195
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY...................................               7               6               7
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY............................................           2,514           2,463           2,514
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY...........................................           1,205           1,180           1,205
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.............................           7,559           7,407           7,559
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY.............................................           1,135           1,112           1,135

                            LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, LA.........           7,152           7,008           7,152
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA......................................           2,057           2,015           2,057
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA.................           1,191           1,167           1,191
BAYOU PIERRE, LA................................................              24              23              24
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA.............................              15              14              15
BAYOU TECHE, LA.................................................             132             129             132
CADDO LAKE, LA..................................................             220             215             220
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA....................................          15,474          15,164          15,474
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA............................................           1,695           1,661           1,695
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA..................................          30,575          29,963          30,575
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA......................................             885             867             885
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA...............................             814             797             814
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA................................           7,717           7,562           7,717
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA.............................................           1,250           1,225           1,250
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA.........................           1,272           1,246           1,272
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO,...........          68,000          66,640          68,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA...................................              60              58              60
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA...................................             200             196             200
WALLACE LAKE, LA................................................             239             234             239

                              MAINE

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME....................................           1,050           1,029           1,050
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME...............................             117             114             117
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME...................................             800             784             800
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME....................              20              19              20

                            MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD.....................          13,879          13,601          13,879
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL)............................             400             392             400
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.................................             150             147             150
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD...............................             171             167             171
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV...............................           1,955           1,915           1,955
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD...................................             500             490             500
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD.............................              64              62              64
SUSQUEHANNA-HAVRE DE GRACE, MD..................................             180             176             180
WICOMICO RIVER, MD..............................................           1,500           1,470           1,500

                          MASSACHUSETTS

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA.............................................             687             673             687
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA..............................................             839             822             839
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA............................................             609             596             609
CAPE COD CANAL, MA..............................................          17,457          17,107          17,457
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA...................             300             294             300
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA...........................................             278             272             278
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA.........................................             558             546             558
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA..........................................             580             568             580
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA...............................             437             428             437
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA.............................................             692             678             692
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA............................................             643             630             643
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER,...........             446             437             446
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA...................................           1,100           1,078           1,100
TULLY LAKE, MA..................................................             781             765             781
WEST HILL DAM, MA...............................................             686             672             686
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA..............................................             633             620             633

                            MICHIGAN

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI..................................             722             707             722
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI...........................................             325             318             325
DETROIT RIVER, MI...............................................           5,817           5,700           5,817
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI..........................................             743             728             743
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI..............................................              10               9              10
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI...............................             200             196             200
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI...........................................              12              11              12
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI.............................................             700             686             700
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI...................................             600             588             600
ROUGE RIVER, MI.................................................             960             940             960
SAGINAW RIVER, MI...............................................             550             539             550
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI.............................................              20              19              20
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI.............................................             643             630             643
ST. MARYS RIVER, MI.............................................          26,031          25,510          26,031
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI....................           2,576           2,524           2,576

                            MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD........................             236             231             236
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI...............................           7,581           7,429           7,581
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN...............................             377             369             377
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN........................             611             598             611
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.............................................             270             264             270
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS........          44,993          44,093          44,993
ORWELL LAKE, MN.................................................             409             400             409
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN...................................              86              84              86
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN..........................................             163             159             163
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN...............           3,357           3,289           3,357
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN....................             452             442             452

                           MISSISSIPPI

BILOXI HARBOR, MS...............................................              25              24              25
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS..................................             258             252             258
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS.............................................           1,801           1,764           1,801
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS...............................              70              68              70
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS........................................              40              39              40
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS..............................................           1,605           1,572           1,605
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...........................................           5,655           5,541           5,655
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA..........................................             133             130             133
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS...................................              82              80              82

                            MISSOURI

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO.....................           6,330           6,203           6,330
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO.............................................           3,288           3,222           3,288
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO............................           7,801           7,644           7,801
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO...............................           2,255           2,209           2,255
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.....................................             907             888             907
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO............................................           1,018             997           1,018
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS..........          25,571          25,059          25,571
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO.........................................           2,415           2,366           2,415
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO...................................              14              13              14
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO.............................             400             392             400
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO.............................................           1,257           1,231           1,257
STOCKTON LAKE, MO...............................................           3,895           3,817           3,895
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR......................................           7,082           6,940           7,082
UNION LAKE, MO..................................................               7               6               7

                             MONTANA

FORT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT......................................          15,366          15,058          15,366
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT...............................             200             196             200
LIBBY DAM, MT...................................................           1,736           1,701           1,736
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT.............................             147             144             147

                            NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD...............           7,434           7,285           7,434
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE..........................................           2,722           2,667           2,722
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE...............................             345             338             345
MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA..............             137             134             137
PAPILLION CREEK, NE.............................................             835             818             835
SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.................................           1,267           1,241           1,267

                             NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV...............................             185             181             185
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA....................................             954             934             954
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV..............................             304             297             304

                          NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH..............................................             644             631             644
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH.......................................             775             759             775
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH..........................................             769             753             769
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH.....................................           1,489           1,459           1,489
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH...............................              91              89              91
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH............................................             653             639             653
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH......................             500             490             500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH...................................             250             245             250
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH.........................................             735             720             735

                           NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ..............................................             350             343             350
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ...........................................             360             352             360
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ....................................              15              14              15
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA, AND DE.........          21,410          20,981          21,410
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ...............................             238             233             238
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ.............................................             300             294             300
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ...................              60              58              60
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ.........................             570             558             570
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ...................................           1,575           1,543           1,575
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ........................              65              63              65
RARITAN RIVER, NJ...............................................              60              58              60

                           NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM.................................................           3,738           3,663           3,738
COCHITI LAKE, NM................................................           3,240           3,175           3,240
CONCHAS LAKE, NM................................................           3,317           3,250           3,317
GALISTEO DAM, NM................................................             938             919             938
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM...............................             843             826             843
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM............................................           1,155           1,131           1,155
RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM.........           2,425           2,376           2,425
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.....................................           1,814           1,777           1,814
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM.............................             548             537             548
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM..............................................           1,053           1,031           1,053
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM...............           1,312           1,285           1,312

                            NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY.................................................             696             682             696
ARKPORT DAM, NY.................................................             354             346             354
BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY.............................              60              58              60
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY.....................           1,324           1,297           1,324
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY..............................................             950             931             950
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY..........................................              60              58              60
EAST RIVER, NY..................................................             130             127             130
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY............................................             823             806             823
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY......................................              60              58              60
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY........................................              60              58              60
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINTENANCE)..................................           2,150           2,107           2,150
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C)........................................           1,700           1,666           1,700
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY...............................             959             939             959
JAMAICA BAY, NY.................................................           3,360           3,292           3,360
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY.....................................               5               4               5
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY............................................           2,861           2,803           2,861
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY............................              40              39              40
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY.............................................           6,558           6,426           6,558
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL)......................           9,200           9,016           9,200
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT..........           1,100           1,078           1,100
NEWTOWN CREEK, NY...............................................              60              58              60
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY...................................           1,990           1,950           1,990
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY............................................               5               4               5
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY....................             900             882             900
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY....................             642             629             642
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY..........................................             822             805             822

                         NORTH CAROLINA

B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC..............................           1,833           1,796           1,833
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC............................             806             789             806
FALLS LAKE, NC..................................................           2,014           1,973           2,014
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC...............................             261             255             261
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.....................................           1,000             980           1,000
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC........................................           5,900           5,782           5,900
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC...................................             700             686             700
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC...........................................              50              49              50
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC..........................................             250             245             250
W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC.............................           3,449           3,380           3,449
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...........................................          12,445          12,196          12,445

                          NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN HALEY, ND................................................             151             147             151
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND................................          10,519          10,308          10,519
HOMME LAKE, ND..................................................             208             203             208
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND...............................             262             256             262
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND.............................           1,249           1,224           1,249
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND...............................................             702             687             702
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND.............................             137             134             137
SOURIS RIVER, ND................................................             351             343             351
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND....................              28              27              28

                              OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH.............................................           1,462           1,432           1,462
BERLIN LAKE, OH.................................................           2,613           2,560           2,613
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH...........................................           1,599           1,567           1,599
CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH.......................................           1,274           1,248           1,274
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH............................................           9,665           9,471           9,665
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH.............................................           1,275           1,249           1,275
DELAWARE LAKE, OH...............................................           2,363           2,315           2,363
DILLON LAKE, OH.................................................           1,354           1,326           1,354
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH.............................................           1,000             980           1,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH...............................             610             597             610
LORAIN HARBOR, OH...............................................           1,056           1,034           1,056
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..........................              29              28              29
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH.........................           1,356           1,328           1,356
MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH...................................           1,993           1,953           1,993
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH.........................................           1,454           1,424           1,454
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH.......................................          12,381          12,133          12,381
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH............................             444             435             444
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH............................................           1,740           1,705           1,740
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH...................................             305             298             305
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..........................              35              34              35
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH....................             270             264             270
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH...............................................           5,982           5,862           5,982
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH.............................................             655             641             655
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH................................             838             821             838
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH.......................................           1,069           1,047           1,069

                            OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK................................................             591             579             591
BIRCH LAKE, OK..................................................             987             967             987
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK.............................................           2,058           2,016           2,058
CANTON LAKE, OK.................................................           3,902           3,823           3,902
COPAN LAKE, OK..................................................           1,420           1,391           1,420
EUFAULA LAKE, OK................................................           6,049           5,928           6,049
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK............................................           4,992           4,892           4,992
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK............................................           1,089           1,067           1,089
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK......................................             711             696             711
HEYBURN LAKE, OK................................................             634             621             634
HUGO LAKE, OK...................................................           1,549           1,518           1,549
HULAH LAKE, OK..................................................             772             756             772
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK...............................             201             196             201
KAW LAKE, OK....................................................           2,149           2,106           2,149
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK...............................................           7,071           6,929           7,071
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK.............           6,827           6,690           6,827
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK................................................           4,369           4,281           4,369
OPTIMA LAKE, OK.................................................              32              31              32
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK..................             128             125             128
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK.............................................           1,254           1,228           1,254
ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIR, OK...................           5,399           5,291           5,399
SARDIS LAKE, OK.................................................           1,002             981           1,002
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK.............................           1,000             980           1,000
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK...............................................           1,767           1,731           1,767
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK........................................           4,055           3,973           4,055
WAURIKA LAKE, OK................................................           1,537           1,506           1,537
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK..................................           4,913           4,814           4,913
WISTER LAKE, OK.................................................           1,231           1,206           1,231

                             OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR..............................................             931             912             931
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR.............................................             561             549             561
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..............................           6,640           6,507           6,640
CHETCO RIVER, OR................................................             561             549             561
COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER,...........          24,378          23,890          24,378
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA..........................          12,857          12,599          12,857
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR.........             693             679             693
COOS BAY, OR....................................................           4,793           4,697           4,793
COQUILLE RIVER, OR..............................................             298             292             298
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR..........................................           1,299           1,273           1,299
COUGAR LAKE, OR.................................................           1,682           1,648           1,682
DETROIT LAKE, OR................................................             830             813             830
DORENA LAKE, OR.................................................           1,100           1,078           1,100
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR..............................................              60              58              60
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................           1,130           1,107           1,130
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR.............................................           1,771           1,735           1,771
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR....................................           1,658           1,624           1,658
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR............................................             702             687             702
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR..............              20              19              20
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR...............................             575             563             575
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA................................           4,394           4,306           4,394
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR..........................................           1,835           1,798           1,835
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................           3,487           3,417           3,487
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..................................           5,309           5,202           5,309
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR...................................             200             196             200
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR...................................             574             562             574
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR.............................              95              93              95
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR...............................................             551             539             551
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR....................           7,400           7,252           7,400
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR........................             104             101             104
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR............................             459             449             459
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR...........................................             685             671             685
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR......................................           1,962           1,922           1,962

                          PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA.............................................           4,000           3,920           4,000
ALVIN R. BUSH DAM, PA...........................................             816             799             816
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA.......................................             384             376             384
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA.............................................           1,473           1,443           1,473
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA.............................................           2,891           2,833           2,891
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA........................................           1,356           1,328           1,356
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA.............................................           2,446           2,397           2,446
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA..........................................           2,086           2,044           2,086
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA...........................................             893             875             893
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ.................           1,095           1,073           1,095
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA..............................           1,660           1,626           1,660
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA....................................             898             880             898
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA........................................           1,216           1,191           1,216
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA......................             400             392             400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA...............................           1,101           1,078           1,101
JOHNSTOWN, PA...................................................              80              78              80
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA..........................           1,565           1,533           1,565
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA.............................................           1,611           1,578           1,611
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA.........................................           2,005           1,964           2,005
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA...........................................          17,018          16,677          17,018
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH, AND WV.......................          23,140          22,677          23,140
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH, AND WV....................             626             613             626
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA...................................             120             117             120
PROMPTON LAKE, PA...............................................             623             610             623
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA................................................              63              61              63
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA...............................................           4,507           4,416           4,507
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA.............................              46              45              46
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA............................................             250             245             250
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA.........................................           2,426           2,377           2,426
STILLWATER LAKE, PA.............................................             514             503             514
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA....................             112             109             112
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA.........................................           2,752           2,696           2,752
TIONESTA LAKE, PA...............................................           2,421           2,372           2,421
UNION CITY LAKE, PA.............................................             390             382             390
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA.........................................           1,431           1,402           1,431
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA........................................             883             865             883
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD..............................           2,210           2,165           2,210

                           PUERTO RICO

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR.............................................           2,700           2,646           2,700

                          RHODE ISLAND

FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI........................             558             546             558
GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI...............................             250             245             250
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI...............................              90              88              90
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI...................................             450             441             450
WOONSOCKET, RI..................................................             420             411             420

                         SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...........................................          13,841          13,564          13,841
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.............................           5,408           5,299           5,408
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC...............................              65              63              65
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC...................................             875             857             875

                          SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD...................................           8,285           8,119           8,285
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD.............................................             296             290             296
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.....................................             222             217             222
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD.........................           8,818           8,641           8,818
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD...............................             189             185             189
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN........................................             554             542             554
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND..................................          10,318          10,111          10,318
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD.............................              84              82              84

                            TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................           6,020           5,899           6,020
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN.......................................           6,346           6,219           6,346
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN...........................           3,098           3,036           3,098
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN..............................           6,358           6,230           6,358
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN............................................           5,925           5,806           5,925
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN...............................              34              33              34
J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN...........................           4,380           4,292           4,380
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN....................................           8,106           7,943           8,106
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN...................................               8               7               8
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.............................................          21,845          21,408          21,845
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN...........................................             109             106             109

                              TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX................................................           1,081           1,059           1,081
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI.............           1,593           1,561           1,593
BARDWELL LAKE, TX...............................................           1,861           1,823           1,861
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................           3,776           3,700           3,776
BELTON LAKE, TX.................................................           3,516           3,445           3,516
BENBROOK LAKE, TX...............................................           2,464           2,414           2,464
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX........................................           3,878           3,800           3,878
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX...............................           3,670           3,596           3,670
CANYON LAKE, TX.................................................           3,580           3,508           3,580
CEDAR BAYOU, TX.................................................             350             343             350
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.................................           5,912           5,793           5,912
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX....................................           6,939           6,800           6,939
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX......................              44              43              44
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX......................           3,464           3,394           3,464
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.............................................           4,796           4,700           4,796
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX................................           3,738           3,663           3,738
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX...................................           3,519           3,448           3,519
GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX.......................................             500             490             500
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX........................................           2,305           2,258           2,305
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX..............................................           2,981           2,921           2,981
GREENS BAYOU, TX................................................             800             784             800
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX..................................          24,277          23,791          24,277
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX............................................           1,635           1,602           1,635
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................          18,188          17,824          18,188
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX...............................           1,343           1,316           1,343
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX............................................           1,586           1,554           1,586
JOE POOL LAKE, TX...............................................           1,956           1,916           1,956
LAKE KEMP, TX...................................................             183             179             183
LAVON LAKE, TX..................................................           3,062           3,000           3,062
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX..............................................           3,199           3,135           3,199
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX......................................           4,307           4,220           4,307
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX..........................................           2,867           2,809           2,867
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX...................           2,447           2,398           2,447
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX.....................................           1,802           1,765           1,802
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX..............................................           1,211           1,186           1,211
PROCTOR LAKE, TX................................................           3,526           3,455           3,526
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX...................................             100              98             100
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX............................................           1,922           1,883           1,922
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX......................................          14,182          13,898          14,182
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX...............................           5,045           4,944           5,045
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX.............................             242             237             242
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX.............................................           3,246           3,181           3,246
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX.......................................           2,087           2,045           2,087
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX.....................................           4,667           4,573           4,667
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX...........................             100              98             100
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX.........................           2,935           2,876           2,935
WACO LAKE, TX...................................................           3,035           2,974           3,035
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX............................................           1,990           1,950           1,990
WHITNEY LAKE, TX................................................           5,397           5,289           5,397
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX..................................           3,847           3,770           3,847

                              UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT...............................              31              30              31
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT.............................             642             629             642

                             VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN, VT...............................................             889             871             889
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT...............................              79              77              79
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT.........................................             748             733             748
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT......................................             941             922             941
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT..............................................             879             861             879
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT...........................................           1,993           1,953           1,993

                            VIRGINIA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA.........................           1,742           1,707           1,742
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA.........................           1,156           1,132           1,156
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA..........................................             600             588             600
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA...............................           2,253           2,207           2,253
HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIF..........           1,048           1,027           1,048
HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..........              75              73              75
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA...............................             461             451             461
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.........................................           4,363           4,275           4,363
JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC....................................          10,629          10,416          10,629
JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.........................           2,341           2,294           2,341
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA..............................................          11,050          10,829          11,050
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA..............................             486             476             486
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA...............................................           4,694           4,600           4,694
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA...................................             902             883             902

                           WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA............................................             708             693             708
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA..........................           2,445           2,396           2,445
GRAYS HARBOR, WA................................................           8,500           8,330           8,500
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA...........................................           3,050           2,989           3,050
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.....................................           3,734           3,659           3,734
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA..............              70              68              70
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA...............................             730             715             730
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA..................................          10,553          10,341          10,553
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA...................................           2,062           2,020           2,062
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA..................................           2,823           2,766           2,823
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA...............................           2,172           2,128           2,172
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA.............................................           3,021           2,960           3,021
MOUNT ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA...........................             313             306             313
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................           3,549           3,478           3,549
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA...................................             516             505             516
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA............................             995             975             995
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA.............................             453             443             453
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA..............................................           4,240           4,155           4,240
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA.........................................             271             265             271
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA....................              55              53              55
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA......................................             145             142             145
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR..............................           3,236           3,171           3,236

                          WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV.............................................           1,366           1,338           1,366
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV..............................................           2,039           1,998           2,039
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV.............................................           2,695           2,641           2,695
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV..............................................           2,116           2,073           2,116
ELKINS, WV......................................................              60              58              60
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV...............................             528             517             528
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV................................          12,401          12,152          12,401
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY, AND OH.......................          34,232          33,547          34,232
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY, AND OH....................           2,805           2,748           2,805
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV.............................................           2,407           2,358           2,407
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV......................................           1,064           1,042           1,064
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV...........................................           2,692           2,638           2,692
SUTTON LAKE, WV.................................................           2,587           2,535           2,587
TYGART LAKE, WV.................................................           1,406           1,377           1,406

                            WISCONSIN

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI........................................             741             726             741
FOX RIVER, WI...................................................           2,889           2,831           2,889
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI............................................           3,406           3,337           3,406
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI...............................              69              67              69
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI...................................             288             282             288
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI............              19              18              19
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI....................             524             513             524

                             WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY...............................              55              53              55
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY.........................................           1,014             993           1,014
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY.............................             111             108             111
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, ITEMS LISTED UNDER STATES.......................       2,112,016       2,059,118       2,101,451

                        NATIONAL PROGRAMS

ADDITIONAL FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION.....................  ..............          10,400  ..............
ADDITIONAL NAVIGATION...........................................  ..............         123,313  ..............
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
    SMALL, REMOTE OR SUBSISTENCE HARBOR MAINTENANCE.............  ..............  ..............          30,000
    INLAND NAVIGATION CHANNEL MAINTENANCE.......................  ..............  ..............          15,000
    COMMERCIAL HARBOR MAINTENANCE...............................  ..............  ..............          55,000
    MISCELLANEOUS MAINTENANCE...................................  ..............  ..............          34,000
    MULTI-PURPOSE PROJECT O&M...................................;  ..............  ..............           9,000
INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK FORCE/HURRICANE.........           6,000           2,450           6,000
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH...............................             690             676             690
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIP MAINT (FEM)...............           4,750           4,655           4,750
BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M; BUSINESS PROGRAMS:
    STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM.................................             750             735             750
    PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM.................           4,000           3,920           4,000
    RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM.......................           1,650           1,617           1,650
    OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION...........................             392             384             392
COASTAL AND OCEAN DATA SYSTEM...................................           3,000           3,920           5,000
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM..................................           2,700           2,646           2,700
RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS....................           5,000           4,900           5,000
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)............................           4,500           4,410           4,500
DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE..................................          12,000          11,760  ..............
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE....................................          12,000          11,760  ..............
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM............           1,150           1,127           1,150
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH [DOER]...........           6,300           6,174           6,300
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM [DOTS]............           2,820           2,763           2,820
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM............................             270             264             270
FACILITY PROTECTION [CISP]......................................           6,500           6,370           6,500
FERC HYDROPOWER COORDINATION....................................           3,000           2,940           3,000
FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT...........           3,800           3,724           3,800
GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.....................................           1,080           1,058           1,080
GLOBAL CHANGE SUSTAINABILITY....................................          10,000  ..............  ..............
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS...............................           3,420           3,351           3,420
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS..........          26,780          26,244          26,780
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS.....................           3,920           3,841           3,920
NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY................................          21,000          20,580          21,000
NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT........           4,230           4,145           4,230
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM................................           6,300           6,174           8,300
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT..........          15,000          14,700          15,000
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM [NEPP]..................           6,750           6,615           6,750
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS.................             571             559             571
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT...........................             300             294             300
PROTECT, CLEAR, AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS.........................              50              49              50
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS.......................................             500             490             500
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS..................................           4,771           4,675           4,771
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION..........................             825             808             825
RECREATIONONESTOP [R1S] NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION.........              65              63              65
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................           1,800           1,764           4,100
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHAB......................             300             294             300
SHORELINE USE PERMIT STUDY......................................             250             245             250
SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY (NEW).................................          12,300  ..............  ..............
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT [WOTS].......................             500             490             500
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS.................................         201,984         307,347         304,984

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE..............................  ..............  ..............         -46,435
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..........................       2,314,000       2,366,465       2,360,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dam Re-operation Studies.--As soon as practicable after the 
date of enactment of this act, the Secretary of the Army, 
acting through the Chief of Engineers, is encouraged to 
initiate and complete, on the most expedited basis practicable, 
a study to determine the feasibility and estimated water supply 
benefit of updating the operations and maintenance manuals for 
the dams in the State of California within the jurisdiction of 
the Sacramento and San Francisco office of the Corps of 
Engineers.
    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee 
recommendation includes additional funds above the budget 
request to continue ongoing projects and activities. The 
Committee is concerned that the administration criteria for 
navigation maintenance, does not allow small, remote, or 
subsistence harbors to properly compete for scarce navigation 
maintenance funds. The Committee urges the Corps to revise the 
criteria used for determining which navigation maintenance 
projects are funded to account for the economic impact that 
these projects provide to local and regional economies. The 
Committee recommends that priority in allocating these funds 
should be towards completing ongoing work maintaining harbors 
and shipping channels, particularly where there is a U.S. Coast 
Guard presence, or that will enhance national, regional, or 
local economic development, and promote job growth and 
international competitiveness or for critical backlog 
maintenance activities.
    The administration has complete discretion over how these 
funds are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing 
work that either did not make it into the administration 
request or were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 days of 
enactment, the Corps shall provide the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how these 
funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work is 
being accomplished.
    Coastal Ocean Data System.--The administration proposed a 
line item called Coastal Data Information Program under the 
Operation and Maintenance account in the Press Book that 
accompanied the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget 
request as a ``previously unfunded item'' commonly referred to 
as a new start. When the fiscal year 2011 budget justification 
sheets were delivered to the Committee, this line item was 
renamed Coastal Ocean Data System. The fiscal year 2012 budget 
request treated this as a continuing item for 2012 as Coastal 
Ocean Data System under the Operations and Maintenance account 
because the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process was not 
completed when the budget was released. Once the continuing 
resolution for fiscal year 2011 was enacted and the Corps 
prepared their work plan, the Corps included funding for this 
newly named item in the Investigations account under the 
traditional line item Coastal Field Data Collection.
    The Committee has reviewed the budget justifications for 
fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 and does not agree that 
this item should be designated as a new start. While the line 
item description is new, the work proposed appears to be 
similar, if not the same work as to what has traditionally been 
funded for this item regardless of the name. Therefore the 
Committee has included funding for this as a continuing item. 
Additional funding has been recommended for the maintenance of 
wave observations and expansion of the national wave monitoring 
network. The Committee notes the importance of accurate 
directional wave measurements to the success of coastal 
projects.
    Dredge Wheeler and McFarland Ready Reserve.--The Committee 
notes that $24,000,000 has been requested to keep these two 
dredges in ready reserve status in accordance with legislation 
provided in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1996 and 
2007. These funds are intended to allow the dredges to be 
staffed and ready for periodic testing and utilization, if 
needed, based on very specific criteria.
    In this tight fiscal environment, the Committee does not 
believe that it is justifiable for $24,000,000 to be provided 
to the Corps for these vessels to sit at the dock. The fiscal 
year 2002 Energy and Water conferees commissioned a GAO study 
of the benefits and impacts of the minimum dredge fleet. That 
report, published in March 2003, stated that ``Restrictions on 
the use of the Corps' hopper dredge fleet, which began in 
fiscal year 1993, have imposed costs on the Corps' dredging 
program, but have thus far not resulted in proven benefits. 
Most of the costs of the Corps' hopper dredges are incurred 
regardless of how frequently the dredges are used. For example, 
the Corps' placement of the Wheeler in ready reserve--55 annual 
workdays plus emergencies--reduced the vessel's productivity by 
56 percent but reduced costs by only 20 percent.'' The Corps 
has yet to provide any documentation showing the benefits of 
the ready reserve of these dredges.
    In light of this report and the current economic climate, 
the Committee believes that it is prudent to fully utilize the 
capabilities of these dredges. The Committee recommends that 
rather than using the proposed $24,000,000 for keeping these 
vessels in a ready reserve status that these funds be used for 
actual dredging of navigation harbors and channels. 
Consequently, the Committee has included legislative language 
directing full utilization of these dredges.
    Global Change Sustainability.--No funding is included for 
this new item first proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. As 
it has not received any funding it is considered a new start 
and is ineligible for funding in fiscal year 2012.
    Sustainability and Energy.--No funding is included for this 
new item proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $189,620,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     196,000,000
House allowance.........................................     196,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     193,000,000

    An appropriation of $193,000,000 is recommended for the 
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
    This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred 
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, 
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors 
Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977 
Public Law 95-217, and the Marine Protection, Research and 
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Public Law 92-532.
    The appropriation helps maintain program performance, 
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships 
with States and local communities through watershed planning 
efforts.

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $129,740,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     109,000,000
House allowance.........................................     109,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     109,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $109,000,000 
to continue activities related to the FUSRAP in fiscal year 
2005.
    The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites 
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was 
transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the fiscal year 
1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public 
Law 105-62.
    FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program 
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic 
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup 
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the 
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. 
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible 
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not 
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real 
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
    The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the 
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its 
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used 
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming 
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program.
    The Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing 
completion.

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     $27,000,000
House allowance.........................................      27,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,000,000

    The Committee has recommended $27,000,000 for the Flood 
Control and Coastal Emergencies account. This account provides 
funds for preparedness activities for natural and other 
disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting and rescue 
operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore protection 
work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean water 
where the source has been contaminated or where adequate 
supplies of water are needed for consumption.

                            GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $184,630,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     185,000,000
House allowance.........................................     177,640,000
Committee recommendation................................     185,000,000

    This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, 
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research 
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The 
Committee recommendation is $185,000,000.
    Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the 
Chief of Engineers and 8 division offices supervise work in 38 
district offices.
    Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support 
center provides administrative services (such as personnel, 
logistics, information management, and finance and accounting) 
for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate 
field operating activities.
    Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs 
studies and analyses, and develops planning techniques for the 
management and development of the Nation's water resources.
    Within the funds provided, the Institute for Water 
Resources is directed to submit to the Senate Appropriations 
Committee within 180 days of enactment of this act, a vision on 
how the Nation should address the critical need for port and 
inland waterway modernization to accommodate the post-Panamax 
vessels that currently transit the Suez Canal and will soon 
take advantage of the Panama Canal Expansion. Factors for 
consideration within the vision include the costs associated 
with deepening and widening deep-draft harbors; the ability of 
the waterways and ports to enhance the Nation's export 
initiatives benefitting the agricultural and manufacturing 
sectors; the current and projected population trends that 
distinguish regional ports and ports which are immediately 
adjacent to large population centers; and the environmental 
impacts resulting from the modernization of inland waterways 
and deep-draft ports.
    United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This 
center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and 
accounting.
    Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee believes 
that an Office of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works 
Program would hamper the efficient and effective coordination 
of issues with the Committee staff and Members of Congress. The 
Committee believes that the technical knowledge and managerial 
expertise needed for the Corps headquarters to effectively 
address Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and 
headquarters policy matters resides in the Civil Works 
organization. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that 
the Office of Congressional Affairs not be a part of the 
process by which information on Civil Works projects, programs, 
and activities is provided to Congress.
     The Corps is reminded that General Expense funds are 
appropriated solely for the executive management and oversight 
of the Civil Works Program under the direction of the Director 
of Civil Works.

      OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

Appropriations, 2011....................................      $4,990,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       6,000,000
House allowance.........................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

    The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 for the Office of 
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) [OASA(CW)]. 
As has been previously stated, the Committee believes that this 
office should be funded through the Defense appropriations bill 
and directs the administration to budget for this office under 
the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance--Army 
account in future budget submissions. It is the Committee's 
opinion that the traditional role of the ASA(CW) is to provide 
the Chief of Engineers advice about policy matters and 
generally be the political spokesperson for the 
administration's policies; however, the Chief of Engineers is 
responsible for carrying out the program. This is underscored 
by the administration's budget documents that state that the 
OASA(CW) provides policy direction and oversight for the civil 
works program and the Headquarters of the Corps provides 
executive direction and management of the civil works program.
    The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises 
the Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including 
the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The 
Assistant Secretary is a member of the Army Secretariat with 
responsibilities, such as participating in continuity of 
Government exercises that extend well beyond Civil Works.
    The Army's accounting system does not track OMA funding of 
overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which 
office receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective 
to do so for a 20-person office. Instead, expenses such as 
legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting 
services, the executive motor pool, travel on military 
aircraft, and other support services are centrally funded and 
managed on a department-wide basis. Transferring the funding 
for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to 
a separate account has greatly complicated the Army's 
accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no 
commensurate benefit to justify the change. The Committee does 
not agree that these costs should be funded in this bill and 
therefore has only provided funding for salaries and expenses 
as in previous years.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

    Section 101. The bill includes language concerning 
reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 102. The bill includes language prohibiting 
implementation of competitive sourcing or HPO.
    Section 103. The bill includes language concerning 
continuing contracts and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
    Section 104. The bill includes language concerning report 
notifications.
    Section 105. The bill includes a provision providing the 
Corps of Engineers authorization for emergency measures to 
exclude Asian carp from the Great Lakes. It should be noted 
that when considering this language for inclusion in this bill 
that the Committee did not consider hydrologic separation of 
the Great Lakes Basin from the Mississippi River Basin to be an 
emergency measure. The Committee believes that the issue of 
hydrologic separation should be fully studied by the Corps of 
Engineers and vetted by the appropriate congressional 
authorizing committees and specifically enacted into law rather 
than have implementation be attempted through this limited 
provision.
    Section 106. The bill includes language concerning funding 
transfers.
    Section 107. The bill includes language authorizing 
employees to serve on an International Commission.
    Section 108. The bill includes language concerning the 
utilization of the Revolving Fund for the acquisition of a 
building.
    Section 109. The bill includes language concerning the 
transfer of funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    Section 110. The bill includes language concerning Federal 
dredges.
    Section 111. The bill includes language concerning Federal 
dredges.
    Section 112. The bill includes language concerning Federal 
dredges.
    Section 113. The bill includes language concerning a real 
property interest.
    Section 114. The bill includes language concerning the 
deauthorization of a portion of a project.
    Section 115. The bill includes language concerning the 
utilization of the revolving fund for construction of 
facilities.
    Section 116. The bill includes language concerning 
disposition of acquired lands.
    Section 117. The bill includes language concerning dredge 
material disposal sites.
    Section 118. The bill includes language deauthorizing a 
portion of a project.

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $31,940,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      32,991,000
House allowance.........................................      28,704,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,991,000

    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2012 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
totals $28,991,000. An appropriation of $25,441,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $2,000,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. 
The Committee recommendation provides $1,550,000 for program 
administration and oversight.
    Legislative language is included which allows up to 
$1,500,000 of the funds provided to be used for administrative 
costs.
    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central 
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes 
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and 
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation 
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. 
The act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the 
act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation 
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.

                         Bureau of Reclamation


                              INTRODUCTION

    The Bureau of Reclamation was established in 1902 with the 
primary mission of harnessing the western rivers that led to 
homesteading and the economic development in the west. Today, 
Reclamation has evolved into a contemporary water management 
agency. In addition to the traditional missions of bringing 
water and power to the west, Reclamation has developed and 
continues to develop, programs, initiatives, and activities 
that will help the Western States, Native American tribes, and 
others meet new water needs and balance the multitude of 
competing uses of water in the West.
    While Reclamation only has projects in the 17 Western 
States, their programs impact the entire Nation. Reclamation is 
the largest wholesaler of water in the country operating 348 
reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 245 million acre-
feet. Reclamation projects deliver 10 trillion gallons of water 
to more than 31 million people each year, and provide 1 out of 
5 Western farmers (140,000) with irrigation water for 10 
million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of the 
Nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. 
Reclamation manages, with partners, 289 recreation sites that 
have 90 million visits annually.

      OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST

    The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Bureau of 
Reclamation is composed of $1,018,389,000 in new budget 
authority. The budget request is $44,196,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2011 enacted amount.
    Unfortunately this budget proposal is woefully inadequate 
in funding the infrastructure needs. The Committee is 
particularly disappointed to see that rural water projects are 
greatly underfunded in this budget. In many cases the budget 
proposals for these projects are less than the inflation rate 
for the project. In other words, at this level of investment, 
these projects will never be completed because project costs 
are increasing faster than the amount recommended by the 
administration.
    The largest account in Reclamation's budget is the Water 
and Related Resources account. The administration budget 
proposal includes $805,187,000 for this account. This is a 
decrease of $106,486,000, from the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
amount.
    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund is proposed at 
$53,068,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is an increase of 
$3,154,000 over the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. This 
account is primarily funded from revenues collected from water 
and power customers. Levels of funding in this account are 
based on a 3-year rolling average of revenues collected.
    The California Bay-Delta Restoration account is proposed at 
$39,651,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is approximately the 
same as the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount.
    The Policy and Administration account is requested at 
$60,000,000, $1,078,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
amount.

                      WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $911,673,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     805,187,000
House allowance.........................................     822,300,000
Committee recommendation................................     885,670,000

    An appropriation of $885,670,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for the Bureau of Reclamation. The water and related 
resources account supports the development, management, and 
restoration of water and related natural resources in the 17 
Western States. The account includes funds for operating and 
maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest overall 
level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct 
studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural 
resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation 
with non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies.
    The Committee has divided underfinancing between the 
Resources Management subaccount and the Facilities Operation 
and Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the 
underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied 
uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon 
applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming 
procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule 
slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen conditions.

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

    The budget for the Bureau of Reclamation consists of 
individual line items of projects. As presented by the 
President, the budget contains 204 specific line-item requests 
for directed spending by the administration. An additional 42 
line-item requests for funding by the administration is for 
nationwide line items. All of these line items were specific 
requests by the administration to be funded in fiscal year 
2012. They did not request these funds programmatically, they 
requested them for a specific project in a specific location 
for a specific purpose.
    Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous 
with earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the 
Bureau of Reclamation where the majority of the budget request 
is based on individual line item studies and projects. Due to 
this ongoing debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all 
congressionally directed spending requests for fiscal year 
2012. That means that the administration has total discretion 
as to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be 
spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The 
Committee has retained the traditional table for the Water and 
Related Resources Account delineating the line items requested 
by the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in 
the administration's budget request, the Committee has also 
inserted some additional line item funding under the Regional 
Programs heading for specific categories of studies or projects 
that the Committee feels are underrepresented in the 
administration's budget request. Reclamation has discretion 
within the guidelines provided as to which line items this 
additional funding will be applied to. The Committee has not 
included any congressionally directed spending as defined in 
section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the standing rules of the Senate.

                               BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget estimate         House allowance            Committee
                                         ------------------------------------------------     recommendation
              Project title                                                              -----------------------
                                           Resources  Facilities   Resources  Facilities   Resources  Facilities
                                          management     OM&R;     management     OM&R;     management     OM&R;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 ARIZONA

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT    ..........      12,706  ..........      12,489  ..........      12,706
 ACT PROJECT............................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT--CENTRAL          6,589         436       6,476         428       6,589         436
 ARIZONA PROJECT........................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE            2,049  ..........       2,014  ..........       2,049  ..........
 SYSTEM.................................
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.         326  ..........         320  ..........         326  ..........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION           200  ..........         196  ..........         200  ..........
 AND REUSE PROJE........................
SALT RIVER PROJECT......................         646         230         635         226         646         230
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT         335  ..........         329  ..........         335  ..........
 ACT PROJECT............................
SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY            463  ..........         455  ..........         463  ..........
 STUDY..................................
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS             702  ..........         690  ..........         702  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS  ..........  ..........       4,865  ..........  ..........  ..........
 QUANTIFICATION.........................
YUMA-AREA PROJECTS......................       1,576      19,378       1,549      19,048       1,576      19,378

               CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT.........................         622         625         611         614         622         625
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT             1,452  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
 RECYCLING PROJECT......................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS:
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM        1,474       7,746       1,448       7,614       1,474       7,746
     UNIT/MORMON IS.....................
    AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT............          33       2,668          32       2,622          33       2,668
    DELTA DIVISION......................       7,304       5,377       7,179       5,285       7,304       5,377
    EAST SIDE DIVISION..................       1,358       2,754       1,334       2,707       1,358       2,754
    FRIANT DIVISION.....................       1,738       3,246       1,708       3,190       1,738       3,246
        SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION.........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       9,000  ..........
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS......      11,367         846      11,173         831      11,367         846
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND          ..........      17,911  ..........      17,606  ..........      17,911
     EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE..........
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION...........      35,344       1,578      34,743       1,551      35,344       1,578
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION.................         638          29         627          28         638          29
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION................         356  ..........         349  ..........         356  ..........
    SHASTA DIVISION.....................         378       7,766         371       7,633         378       7,766
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION..............      10,786       4,201      10,602       4,129      10,786       4,201
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS..........         917       8,002         901       7,865         917       8,002
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS       15,426       5,388      15,163       5,296      15,426       5,388
     UNIT...............................
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION                500  ..........         491  ..........         500  ..........
 PROJECT................................
LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT.........         500  ..........         491  ..........         500  ..........
ORLAND PROJECT..........................  ..........         709  ..........         696  ..........         709
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.............         294  ..........         289  ..........         294  ..........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM       2,485  ..........       2,442  ..........       2,485  ..........
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND              247  ..........         242  ..........         247  ..........
 REUSE PROGRAM..........................
SOLANO PROJECT..........................       1,323       2,382       1,300       2,341       1,323       2,382
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS               268  ..........         263  ..........         268  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT...................         344          41         338          40         344          41

                COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER       11,504       1,249      11,308       1,227      11,504       1,249
 STORAGE PARTIC.........................
COLLBRAN PROJECT........................         217       1,461         213       1,436         217       1,461
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT..........         275      10,859         270      10,674         275      10,859
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.........         344  ..........         338  ..........         344  ..........
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT................          99         166          97         163          99         166
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT..............         108       8,871         106       8,720         108       8,871
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT--ARKANSAS           2,958  ..........       2,907  ..........       2,958  ..........
 VALLEY CONDUIT.........................
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.....         209       1,351         205       1,328         209       1,351
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY         ..........       4,652  ..........       4,572  ..........       4,652
 PROJECT................................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS               95  ..........          93  ..........          95  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
MANCOS PROJECT..........................          67         120          65         117          67         120
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II...         100       2,633          98       2,588         100       2,633
PINE RIVER PROJECT......................         152         240         149         235         152         240
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT.................         356       4,479         349       4,402         356       4,479
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT.....................         754         197         741         193         754         197
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.         256  ..........         251  ..........         256  ..........

                  IDAHO

BOISE-AREA PROJECTS.....................       3,004       3,240       2,952       3,184       3,004       3,240
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY      17,830  ..........      17,526  ..........      17,830  ..........
 PROJECT................................
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............          59  ..........          57  ..........          59  ..........
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECT...............       1,086          30       1,067          29       1,086          30
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS..................       2,361      12,093       2,320      11,887       2,361      12,093

                 KANSAS

WICHITA PROJECT.........................           6         464           5         456           6         464
WICHITA PROJECT (EQUUS BEDS DIVISION)...          49  ..........          48  ..........          49  ..........

                 MONTANA

CROW TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT......  ..........  ..........       8,194  ..........  ..........  ..........
FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL          493  ..........         484  ..........         493  ..........
 WATER SYSTEM...........................
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT....................  ..........         345  ..........         339  ..........         345
HUNTLEY PROJECT.........................          31          53          30          52          31          53
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT...............         534          15         524          14         534          15
MILK RIVER PROJECT......................         327       1,421         321       1,396         327       1,421
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..........          50  ..........          49  ..........          50  ..........
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER          493  ..........         484  ..........         493  ..........
 SYSTEM.................................
SUN RIVER PROJECT.......................          52         275          51         270          52         275

                NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT....................          13         110          12         108          13         110

                 NEVADA

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT (HUMBOLT,               4,209       3,022       4,137       2,970       4,209       3,022
 NEWLANDS, AND WASHOE...................
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT         105  ..........         103  ..........         105  ..........
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM........         493  ..........         484  ..........         493  ..........

               NEW MEXICO

AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT........  ..........  ..........       9,240  ..........  ..........  ..........
CARLSBAD PROJECT........................       2,391       1,613       2,350       1,585       2,391       1,613
EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS                 47  ..........          46  ..........          47  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
JICARILLA APACHE RURAL WATER SYSTEM.....         496  ..........         487  ..........         496  ..........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT...............      11,838      11,734      11,636      11,534      11,838      11,734
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....         230  ..........         226  ..........         230  ..........
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY..............  ..........  ..........      24,375  ..........  ..........  ..........
RIO GRANDE PROJECT......................       1,010       4,027         992       3,958       1,010       4,027
RIO GRANDE PUEBLOS PROJECT..............         250  ..........         245  ..........         250  ..........
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS              181  ..........         177  ..........         181  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS                   192  ..........         188  ..........         192  ..........
 INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................
TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS           ..........  ..........       3,932  ..........  ..........  ..........
 SETTLEMENT.............................
TUCUMCARI PROJECT.......................          40          32          39          31          40          32
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS             78  ..........          76  ..........          78  ..........
 PROGRAM................................

              NORTH DAKOTA

P-SMBP--GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT (NON-         10,524       5,814      10,345       5,715      10,524       5,814
 RURAL WATER)...........................

                OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT........................          66         170          64         167          66         170
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT.....................          37         724          36         711          37         724
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT...................          25         547          24         537          25         547
NORMAN PROJECT..........................          37         537          36         527          37         537
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT...................          67       1,397          65       1,373          67       1,397
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT.....................          56         604          55         593          56         604

                 OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT...................         473         487         464         478         473         487
DESCHUTES PROJECT.......................         264         192         259         188         264         192
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS.................         594         216         583         212         594         216
KLAMATH PROJECT.........................      16,726       1,883      16,441       1,850      16,726       1,883
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........          59  ..........          57  ..........          59  ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT                354         325         347         319         354         325
 DIVISION...............................
TUALATIN PROJECT........................          90         204          88         200          90         204
UMATILLA PROJECT........................         446       2,461         438       2,419         446       2,461

              SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM......         493  ..........         484  ..........         493  ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT..........  ..........          15  ..........          14  ..........          15
MNI WICONI PROJECT......................      16,270      10,058      15,993       9,887      16,270      10,058
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT....................  ..........          93  ..........          91  ..........          93

                  TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT.......................          43          14          42          13          43          14
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT..................          52          85          51          83          52          85
LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER CONSERVATION               49  ..........          48  ..........          49  ..........
 PROJECT................................
NUECES RIVER PROJECT....................          17         601          16         590          17         601
SAN ANGELO PROJECT......................          28         638          27         627          28         638

                  UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT...........................         166         136         163         133         166         136
MOON LAKE PROJECT.......................          10          61           9          59          10          61
NEWTON PROJECT..........................          53         106          52         104          53         106
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....         181  ..........         177  ..........         181  ..........
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT.....................         214         215         210         211         214         215
PROVO RIVER PROJECT.....................       1,163         393       1,143         386       1,163         393
SANPETE PROJECT.........................  ..........          10  ..........           9  ..........          10
SCOFIELD PROJECT........................         301          49         295          48         301          49
SOUTHERN NEVADA/UTAH INVESTIGATIONS               74  ..........          72  ..........          74  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....         206  ..........         202  ..........         206  ..........
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT...............         354          34         347          33         354          34
WEBER BASIN PROJECT.....................         920         752         904         739         920         752
WEBER RIVER PROJECT.....................          65          62          63          60          65          62

               WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT..................       3,278       4,446       3,222       4,370       3,278       4,446
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS................         388          46         381          45         388          46
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......          59  ..........          57  ..........          59  ..........
YAKIMA PROJECT..........................         824       5,608         809       5,512         824       5,608
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT           8,940  ..........       8,788  ..........       8,940  ..........
 PROJECT................................

                 WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT........................         117       4,231         115       4,159         117       4,231
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT....................         255       1,964         250       1,930         255       1,964
SHOSHONE PROJECT........................          75         883          73         867          75         883
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..........          20  ..........          19  ..........          20  ..........
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES......     237,915     224,832     282,987     220,966     245,463     224,832

            REGIONAL PROGRAMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
    RURAL WATER.........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      21,000  ..........
    FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS.......  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........
    WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY       ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       8,000  ..........
     STUDIES AND PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND         ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........
     COMPLIANCE.........................
    ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE NEEDS........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       2,500
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL     ..........      11,519  ..........      11,323  ..........      11,519
 PROJECT--TITLE.........................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL          6,939  ..........       6,821  ..........       6,939  ..........
 PROJECT--TITLE.........................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP],         3,551       4,469       3,490       4,393       3,551       4,469
 SECTION 5..............................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP],         4,039         217       3,970         213       4,039         217
 SECTION 8..............................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT         729  ..........         716  ..........         729  ..........
 PROGRAM................................
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM        ..........       1,600  ..........       1,600  ..........       1,600
     SAFETY PROGRAM.....................
    INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE    ..........      63,587  ..........      63,587  ..........      63,587
     ACTION.............................
    SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS..  ..........      18,520  ..........      18,520  ..........      18,520
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE  ..........       1,300  ..........       1,277  ..........       1,300
 PROGRAM................................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY                   19,954  ..........      19,614  ..........      19,954  ..........
 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM.................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION....       1,610  ..........       1,582  ..........       1,610  ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES......  ..........       9,167  ..........       9,011  ..........       9,167
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM.  ..........       1,400  ..........       1,376  ..........       1,400
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES.............       2,294  ..........       2,255  ..........       2,294  ..........
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS:
    TAOS................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........
    AAMODT..............................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       9,400  ..........
    NAVAJO-GALLUP.......................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........      23,754  ..........
    WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE...............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       4,950  ..........
    CROW................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........       8,336  ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.......       8,945  ..........       8,792  ..........       8,945  ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.      25,980  ..........      25,538  ..........      25,980  ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS..  ..........         875  ..........         860  ..........         875
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM.........       6,951  ..........       6,832  ..........       6,951  ..........
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER        2,060  ..........       2,024  ..........       2,060  ..........
 MARKETING..............................
OPERATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT........         874       1,222         859       1,201         874       1,222
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM (OTHER       3,137      40,449       3,083      39,761       3,137      40,449
 PICK SLOAN)............................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES..................       1,735         307       1,705         301       1,735         307
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM........         711         155         698         152         711         155
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION..........       2,258  ..........       2,219  ..........       2,258  ..........
RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM       2,181  ..........       2,143  ..........       2,181  ..........
 ADMINISTRATION.........................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
    DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION          986       1,100  ..........  ..........         986       1,100
     PROGRAM............................
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM......      10,108  ..........       9,936  ..........      10,108  ..........
RURAL WATER PROGRAM, TITLE I............       2,000  ..........       1,966  ..........       2,000  ..........
SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES................  ..........      25,942  ..........      25,500  ..........      25,942
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--              95  ..........          93  ..........          95  ..........
 TECHNICAL SUPPORT......................
WATERSMART PROGRAM:
    WATERSMART GRANTS (CHALLENGE GRANT        18,500  ..........      10,798  ..........      18,500  ..........
     IN 2010)...........................
        COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT         250  ..........  ..........  ..........         250  ..........
        WATER CONSERVATION FIELD               5,108  ..........       4,000  ..........       5,108  ..........
         SERVICES PROGRAM...............
    TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION/REUSE         23,616  ..........      16,138  ..........      23,616  ..........
     PROJECTS...........................
    BASIN STUDIES.......................       6,000  ..........       4,000  ..........       6,000  ..........
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, REGIONAL PROGRAMS.......     160,611     181,829     139,272     179,075     249,051     184,329

UNDERFINANCING..........................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........     -12,005      -6,000
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................     398,526     406,661     422,259     400,041     482,509     403,161
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION......          805,187
                                                  822,300
                                                  885,670
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Buried Metallic Water Pipe.--The Committee is aware of 
concerns regarding implementation and review of Reclamation's 
Technical Memorandum [TM] 8140-CC-2004-1 (``Corrosion 
Considerations for Buried Metallic Water Pipe''). The 
Committee's primary concern is that this TM may be applying 
different materials to different standards of reliability and 
potentially increasing project costs unnecessarily. The 
Committee understands that Reclamation contracted with the 
National Academy of Sciences in 2009 for an independent review 
of the TM. While the National Academy generally supported the 
TM, the Committee notes that the National Academy also 
recommended in their report (``Review of the Bureau of 
Reclamation's Corrosion Prevention Standards for Ductile Iron 
Pipe'' (2009)) that Reclamation assemble data on pipeline 
reliability for all types of pipe specified in Table 2 of TM 
8140-CC-2004-1 along with the specified corrosion protection 
applied in the various soil types. Reclamation has yet to carry 
out this recommendation which has contributed to continued 
concerns and challenges to the TM. Therefore, the Committee 
directs Reclamation to use the TM as only one of the possible 
criterion for determinations on whether to deny funding or 
approve of a project or to disqualify any type of pipe from use 
in highly corrosive soils until it has assembled data on 
pipeline reliability as recommended by the National Academy and 
conducted an analysis of the performance of these types of pipe 
installed in the same or similar conditions. This analysis 
shall apply consistent standards of reliability and cost 
effectiveness over the life cycle of the project.
    Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project, 
California.--No funding has been provided for this project as 
Reclamation apportioned sufficient funding to complete the 
authorized Federal share of the project.
    Indian Water Rights Settlements Account.--The Committee has 
chosen not to include a separate account for this work. The 
Committee recognizes that these are legal settlements with the 
affected tribes, however, believe it is prudent to keep these 
items within the Water and Related Resources Account. Beyond 
the actual water rights settlement funding, many of these 
settlements included construction components very similar to 
rural water projects funded elsewhere in this account. The 
Committee understands that due to the way the settlements were 
structured, that some of the discretionary funding may not be 
obligated in fiscal year 2012 and will be carried over into 
later years. The Committee urges Reclamation to minimize this 
practice to the extent practicable and within the confines of 
these settlements. To maintain the visibility of these 
projects, the Committee has included the five projects under 
the Regional Programs heading with a subheading called Indian 
Water Rights Settlements.
    San Joaquin Restoration Account.--The Committee has chosen 
not to include a separate account for this item. Rather it is 
being funded as a sub element under the Friant Division of the 
Central Valley Project. The Committee believes that this is 
prudent to keep these funds within the Water and Related 
Resources account maximizing the flexibility of the funding.
    Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.--
The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above 
the budget request for Water and Related Resources studies, 
projects and activities. The Committee recommends that priority 
in allocating these funds should be to complete ongoing work, 
improve water supply reliability, improve water deliveries, 
tribal and nontribal water settlement studies, ecosystem 
restoration, enhance national, regional, or local economic 
development, promote job growth or for critical backlog 
maintenance activities.
    The administration has complete discretion over how these 
funds are to be used. The intent of these funds is for work 
that either did not make it into the administration request or 
were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 days of enactment, 
Reclamation shall provide the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees a work plan delineating how these funds are to be 
distributed and in which phase the work is being accomplished.
    WaterSmart Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse 
Projects.--The Committee is concerned that constrained budgets 
will severely impact the research and development vital to 
improvements in water recycling and desalination technologies' 
development and applications. The Committee believes that only 
through enhanced Federal and non-Federal research partnerships 
can this situation be bridged. Therefore, the Bureau of 
Reclamation should consider how competitively procured cost-
shared research on water reuse and desalination can be 
incorporated into this program. This would potentially allow 
qualified organizations with extensive experience in conducting 
research on water reuse and desalination to leverage the 
Bureau's funding with other cost sharing partners.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $49,914,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      53,068,000
House allowance.........................................      53,068,000
Committee recommendation................................      53,068,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $53,068,000 
for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of 
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide 
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, 
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife 
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of 
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project 
beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project 
beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant 
Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to 
non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent 
required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation 
and restoration payments.
    The Central Valley Project Improvement Act, enacted into 
law in October 1992, established 34 activities to restore and 
enhance fish and wildlife habitats in California's Central 
Valley and Trinity Basins. The act set up a Restoration Fund 
for the deposit of contributions from CVP water and power users 
to pay for those activities, along with contributions from the 
State of California, Federal appropriations, and other 
contributors. Unfortunately a number of sources envisioned to 
contribute to this fund never materialized or funding is no 
longer available from those sources.
    Power users, in particular, are paying a much greater share 
than anyone anticipated. This has resulted in high CVP power 
costs, and unpredictable fee assessments on power agencies. The 
power users fees are unpredictable, since in low water years 
the water users pay very little and the power users make up the 
difference. The Restoration Fund collection in the early years 
of the act was the equivalent of adding $1 per megawatt hour to 
the cost of CVP power, but this has now increased to an average 
cost of approximately $11 per megawatt hour over the last 4 
years.
    Since the fund was established in 1992 more than 
$1,400,000,000 has been spent for restoration activities, but 
there has been little accountability on how effectively it has 
been used. There is very little assurance that the goals of the 
Restoration Fund will be met in the near future, such that the 
fees could be reduced under the statute. Therefore, the 
Committee urges the Commissioner to work with power users to 
determine a more predictable payment stream for power users and 
to develop measures to provide more accountability and 
transparency to the restoration process. Reclamation should 
provide a report to the Senate Appropriations Committee within 
180 days of enactment of this act on actions they are taking in 
this regard. Further, a report covering the previous fiscal 
year activities should be incorporated into the budget 
justifications submitted with the President's budget request 
starting in fiscal year 2013.

                    CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $39,920,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      39,651,000
House allowance.........................................      35,928,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,651,000

    The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of 
$39,651,000 for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
    This account funds activities that are consistent with the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18 
State and Federal agencies and representatives of California's 
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals 
of the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water 
supply reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-
San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California's 
water distribution system.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $61,078,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      60,000,000
House allowance.........................................      60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      60,000,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $60,000,000.
    The policy and administrative expenses program provides for 
the executive direction and management of all reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, Denver, Colorado, and five regional offices. 
The Denver office and regional offices charge individual 
projects or activities for direct beneficial services and 
related administrative and technical costs. These charges are 
covered under other appropriations.

                    INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     $51,483,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $0 for the 
Indian Water Rights Settlements Account.
    This account was proposed as a part of the administration 
request to cover expenses associated with four Indian water 
rights settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of 
2010 (Public Law 111-291), title X of the Omnibus Public Lands 
Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11), and the White 
Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act 
(Public Law 110-390). Rather than create a new account as the 
budget request suggested, the Committee has chosen to provide 
this funding request under the Regional Programs section of the 
Water and Related Resources Account as similar work and funding 
has been previously provided in that account.

                      SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      $9,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $0 for the San 
Joaquin Restoration Fund Account.
    This account was proposed to implement the provisions 
described in the Stipulation of Settlement for the National 
Resources Defense Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit. Rather 
than provide discretionary funding in this account as the 
budget request suggested, the Committee has chosen to provide 
this funding request under the Central Valley Project, Friant 
Division of the Water and Related Resources Account as similar 
work and funding has been previously provided in that account.

             General Provisions--Department of the Interior

    Section 201. The bill includes language regarding Bureau of 
Reclamation Reprogramming.
    Section 202. The bill includes language regarding the San 
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
    Section 203. The bill includes language concerning a 
project cost ceiling increase.
    Section 204. The bill includes language concerning the 
desalination act.
    Section 206. The bill includes language concerning the Bay 
Delta Conservation Plan.
    Section 207. The bill includes language concerning 
groundwater banking.
    Section 208. In 2009, the Bureau of Reclamation approved a 
total of 168 individual transfers among water contractors 
within the CVP. These transfers represented 435,286 acre feet 
of Federal contract water, most of which were accomplished with 
accelerated water transfer programs using programmatic 
environmental documentation. Reclamation's accelerated transfer 
programs apply only to water transfers among CVP contractors 
within specifically defined geographic regions. This provision 
is not intended to affect existing accelerated water transfer 
programs that are carried out in compliance with all applicable 
Federal and State law. Instead, the provision is intended to 
strengthen Reclamation's ability to facilitate appropriate 
water transfers between CVP contractors south of the Delta by 
applying key elements of the existing accelerated programs more 
broadly within the CVP.
    The provision subsumes within it the San Joaquin River 
Restoration Settlement Act and the Settlement, so that any 
proposed transfer under section (a) that would interfere with 
the Settlement Act, the Settlement or implementation of that 
Settlement would violate the new condition language in section 
(a) and would not be approved by the Secretary.
    The Committee understands that if transfers of water may 
take up capacity in the San Joaquin River channel it is the 
intent of the Committee that no transfers under this authority 
shall be approved if they would occupy capacity needed for 
interim flows or restoration flows under the Settlement. The 
intention is to preserve the Settlement, not to expand or 
diminish it and this provision does not modify or amend the 
rights and obligations of the parties to the Settlement. It 
also does not modify, amend or supersede the separate water 
transfer authorities in section 10010(e) of the Settlement Act.
    Section 209. This provision concerns the Friant prepayment 
for the San Joaquin River Settlement currently authorized for 
disbursement starting in 2019. The provision advances 
disbursement of these prepaid funds to 2014 and limits 
expenditure of these authorized mandatory funds to $40,000,000 
per year. The provision changes no other provisions of the San 
Joaquin River Settlement.

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The Committee recommends $25,548,976,000 for the Department 
of Energy. Within these funds, $11,050,000,000 is for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. The 
Committee's highest priority is accelerating breakthroughs in 
clean energy technologies to reduce the Nation's dependence on 
foreign oil and developing carbon-free sources of energy that 
will change the way the United States produces and consumes 
energy. Increases to ARPA-E should accelerate the 
commercialization of these technologies and a shift of funding 
in the Office of Science toward goal-oriented research will 
focus limited investments. The Committee also provides credit 
subsidies for renewable loan guarantees to encourage the early 
commercial production and use of new or significantly improved 
energy efficient technologies. Moreover, the Committee 
recommends an increase of $528,000,000 above fiscal year 2011 
enacted levels for NNSA to address critical national security 
missions. The increase would allow NNSA to stay on track to 
meet its goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials in 4 
years to protect the United States against nuclear terrorism, 
continue modernizing the nuclear weapons complex consistent 
with the Nuclear Posture Review and New START Treaty, and 
develop a new reactor core for the OHIO-class submarine.

                          Exascale Initiative

    The Committee supports the Department's initiative to 
develop exascale computing--1,000 times more powerful than 
today's most powerful computer. The Committee recommends 
$126,000,000 to support this initiative, which includes 
$90,000,000 for the Office of Science and $36,000,000 for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. The Committee 
encourages the Office of Science and the National Nuclear 
Security Administration to continue collaborating on the 
development of exascale computing to take advantage of each 
other's expertise and avoid duplication of effort. The 
Committee understands that the path to exascale computing will 
be extremely challenging and will require significant research 
and development breakthroughs. For example, an exaflop system 
made entirely out of today's technology would probably cost 
$100,000,000,000, require $1,000,000,000 a year to operate, 
need its own dedicated power plant to power the computing 
system, and be very unreliable. Despite these challenges, the 
Department has set an ambitious goal of 2018 to deploy the 
first exascale system. The Committee directs the Department's 
Undersecretary for Science and the National Nuclear Security 
Administration [NNSA] Administrator to submit within 120 days 
of enactment of this act, a joint, integrated strategy and 
program plan with estimated budget needs through 2018 on how 
the Office of Science's Advanced Scientific Computing Research 
and NNSA's Advanced Simulation and Computing programs will 
share responsibilities and coordinate research and development 
activities to reach exascale computing required for national 
security, energy, environmental, and other science missions and 
to retain the United States' global leadership and 
competitiveness in advanced computing.

                           Project Management

    In November 2010, the President's Council of Advisors on 
Science and Technology recommended that the Secretary of Energy 
extend procedures used successfully in ARPA-E to all DOE energy 
programs. For example, ARPA-E uses a rigorous peer review 
process to select the most deserving projects and from 
conception to the award of the contract it only takes 6 to 8 
months, much faster than other DOE energy programs. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Energy within 120 days of 
enactment of this act to submit a report on how the Department 
will implement the Council of Advisors' recommendation to 
extend ARPA-E processes and procedures to all DOE energy 
programs.

                        Reprogramming Guidelines

    The Department of Energy is directed to operate in a manner 
fully consistent with the following reprogramming guidelines. A 
reprogramming request must be submitted to the Committees on 
Appropriations for consideration before any implementation of a 
reorganization proposal which includes moving previous 
appropriations between appropriation accounts. The Department 
is directed to inform the Committees promptly and fully when a 
change in program execution and funding is required during the 
fiscal year. To assist the Department in this effort, the 
following guidance is provided for programs and activities 
funded in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. The Department is directed to follow this 
guidance for all programs and activities unless specific 
reprogramming guidance is provided for a program or activity.
    Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of 
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or 
any significant departure from a program, project, activity, or 
organization described in the agency's budget justification as 
presented to and approved by Congress. For construction 
projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds 
from one construction project identified in the justifications 
to another project or a significant change in the scope of an 
approved project.
    Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or 
prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees in 
writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the 
Committees on Appropriations.

                            Energy Programs

                 ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriations, 2011...................................\1\$1,825,641,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   3,200,053,000
House allowance.........................................   1,304,636,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,795,641,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $30,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommendation is $1,795,641,000 for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    The Committee notes that the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act of 1975 authorized the Department to issue efficiency 
standards for a list of products, and to date televisions are 
the only item for which DOE has failed to issue a standard. The 
Committee also notes that recent studies demonstrate that set 
top boxes consume $3,000,000,000 in electricity per year in the 
United States, and 66 percent of that power is when the 
television is not on. The Committee directs the Secretary to 
initiate rulemaking processes to establish effective efficiency 
standards for electronic devices, including both televisions 
and set-top boxes, within 12 months.
    Hydrogen Technology.--The Committee recommends $98,000,000 
for hydrogen technology. The Committee recognizes the progress 
and achievements of the Fuel Cell Technologies program. The 
program has met or exceeded all benchmarks, and has made 
significant progress in decreasing costs and increasing 
efficiency and durability of fuel cell and hydrogen energy 
systems. Further, the Committee believes fuel cell and hydrogen 
energy systems for stationary, transportation and other motive, 
mobile and portable power applications have the potential to 
enable clean and efficient use of our domestic energy 
resources. The Committee affirms its support for stable and 
continued funding for these programs now and in the future. 
Within the available funds, the Committee recommends funding is 
provided for Technology Validation focused on passenger vehicle 
and hydrogen infrastructure applications, hydrogen fuels R&D;, 
and for Market Transformation in early markets.
    Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--The; Committee 
recommends $180,000,000 for biomass and biorefinery systems 
R&D.; Within the available funds a total of $30,000,000 is for 
algae biofuels.
    Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $290,000,000 for 
solar energy. The Committee encourages the Department of Energy 
to designate and fund, in fiscal year 2012, a center for solar 
energy innovation to be located in close proximity to high-
quality solar resources and focused on promoting the 
integration of solar technologies and products into utility, 
building and commercial systems, and to improve their 
reliability, affordability and rapid deployment across the 
Southwest region and the United States. The Department of 
Energy shall continue to award funding for its Solar 
Demonstration Zone Project in recognition of the work needed to 
test, evaluate and develop innovative solar energy projects and 
the link such a zone could provide between DOE's advanced 
technology development and utility-scale commercialization 
efforts.
    The Committee encourages the Department, in partnership 
with universities, to support the research and development of 
organic photovoltaic cells for the advancement of developing 
alternative energy technologies.
    Wind Energy.--The recommendation is $80,000,000 for wind 
energy. The Committee supports the Department's efforts to 
develop advanced offshore wind energy technologies, including 
freshwater, deepwater, shallow water, and transitional depth 
installations.
    Geothermal Technology.--The recommendation for geothermal 
technology is $34,000,000. The funds made available by this 
section shall be disbursed to the full spectrum of geothermal 
technologies as authorized by the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) and the Department of 
Energy shall continue its support of comprehensive programs 
that support academic and professional development initiatives. 
The Committee directs the Department to make not less than 
$5,000,000 available to continue development and deployment of 
low-temperature geothermal systems.
    Water Power Energy R&D.--The; Committee recommends 
$34,000,000 for water power. All funding provided is for marine 
and hydrokinetic technology research, development, and 
deployment. Within available funds, the Committee directs the 
Department to provide not less than $10,000,000 to build 
necessary infrastructure at marine and hydrokinetic industry 
testing sites designated by the Department as National Marine 
Renewable Energy Centers. Additionally, the Committee 
encourages the Department to provide not less than $15,000,000 
in funding for competitive demonstrations of marine and 
hydrokinetic technologies and requests the Department consider 
reducing and/or waiving cost share requirements for small 
businesses.
    Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$319,157,000 for vehicle technologies. The Energy Policy Act 
[EPAct] of 1992 requires that State, Federal and certain 
private fleets convert an increasing percentage of their 
vehicle fleets to alternative fuel vehicles [AFVs]. However, 
the EPAct 1992 provision does not contemplate the emergence of 
new alternative fuel vehicle technologies, so the definition of 
AFV does not include key electric drive technologies, such as 
hybrid electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. To remedy 
this, ensuring that the EPAct 1992 fleet requirements reflected 
evolving technology options and provided covered fleets 
critical options in meeting their obligations under the law, 
the Energy Independence and Security Act [EISA] of 2007 amended 
the law. EISA expands the AFV definition to include electric 
drive vehicles (including hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric 
vehicles), infrastructure and other emerging technologies. To 
implement this change, DOE was directed to issue guidance no 
later than January 31, 2009. To date, no guidance has been 
issued, which constrains the covered fleets' ability to 
integrate electric drive vehicles into their fleets. The 
Committee directs DOE to move forward with due diligence and to 
provide a status report on the effort and a timeline for 
issuance.
    Funds provided to Vehicle Technology Deployment are to be 
used to expand the program's activities in promoting the 
adoption and use of petroleum reduction technologies and 
practices by working with Clean Cities coalitions and their 
stakeholders on alternative fuel and electric drive advanced 
technology vehicles and related fueling/charging 
infrastructure.
    Medium- and heavy-duty trucks consume roughly one-fifth of 
transportation fuels in the United States, and increasing the 
efficiency of these vehicles can lower the costs of land-based 
freight and the industries that depend on it, while greatly 
reducing the Nation's dependence on imported oil. The 
SuperTruck program focuses on truck efficiency in a partnership 
between DOE and commercial vehicle and equipment manufacturers 
to conduct research and develop the next generation of more 
efficient engines and vehicles. At a time of overall 
constraints on resources for worthy initiatives, the Committee 
appreciates the Department continuing to set as a priority this 
high value public-partnership to develop advanced vehicle 
technologies that will improve the efficiency of medium- and 
heavy-duty commercial vehicles.
    Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for 
lightweight materials modeling and design for vehicle 
optimization. The Committee also recommends up to $5,000,000 
from within available funds to commission a study from the 
National Academies to comprehensively examine market barriers 
that impede the commercial deployment of electric vehicles and 
supporting infrastructure. The study should incorporate input 
from stakeholders, including State utility commissions, 
electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, and local and 
Federal governmental entities with relevant missions. The study 
should include recommendations on the Federal role (including 
specific roles for different Federal agencies) in resolving the 
market barriers the study identifies.
    Further, within available funds up to $10,000,000 is made 
available to fund section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence 
and Security Act [EISA] to promote zero emission cargo 
transport in areas of severe nonattainment and severe traffic 
congestion. Eligible recipients must provide 1-to-1 matching 
funds.
    Building Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$210,500,000 for building technologies. Within these funds, the 
Committee directs $12,000,000 to manufacturing improvements for 
general illumination LED lighting products that meet the 
efficiency requirements of section 321 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
    The Committee urges the Department create a strategic plan 
to promote the use of geothermal heat pumps in both residential 
and commercial buildings; develop innovative technologies to 
enhance the use of geothermal heat pumps; and collect and 
disseminate information regarding the benefit of geothermal 
heat pumps. The Department is directed to report to the 
Committee within 6 months of enactment of this act on the 
progress of this effort.
    Industrial Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$96,000,000 for industrial technologies.
    Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee 
recommends $30,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management 
Program [FEMP].
    Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends 
$26,407,000 for facilities and infrastructure consistent with 
the budget request.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $165,000,000 
for program direction.
    Strategic Programs.--The Committee recommends $50,000,000 
for strategic programs.
    Weatherization Assistance Program.--The Committee provides 
$174,300,000. Of that amount, $3,000,000 is for training and 
technical assistance.
    Intergovernmental Activities.--The Committee provides 
$50,000,000 for State Energy Programs and $10,000,000 for 
Tribal Energy Activities.
    Use of Prior-Year Balances.--The Department is directed to 
use $26,364,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the 
budget request.

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$144,710,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     237,717,000
House allowance.........................................     139,496,000
Committee recommendation................................     141,010,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $3,700,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends $141,010,000 for Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability. No funding is provided for the 
proposed new hub. The recommendation includes $27,000,000 for 
Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability with $17,000,000 of 
this going toward integration and $10,000,000 toward advanced 
modeling. The recommendation includes $24,000,000 for Smart 
Grid Research and Development with $4,000,000 of this for power 
electronics.
    The Committee recognizes the opportunities presented by the 
application and integration of smart grid technologies across 
all sectors of the economy, but particularly in the growing 
number of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles coming to market. 
The Department of Energy should ensure that the efforts within 
the Office of Electricity Delivery and Reliability and at the 
Vehicle Technologies Program are coordinated and focused on 
developing and deploying electric vehicle technologies that can 
help expedite grid-integration of clean and renewable power 
generation sources and those energy resources can be used 
effectively to meet peak daytime electricity demand.
    Within the funds appropriated to the Office of Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability the Committee encourages it to 
accelerate its efforts to provide grants for regional 
transmission planning and technical assistance to entities that 
support or implement additional deployment of new renewable 
electricity generation in the Western and Eastern 
interconnections.

                             Nuclear Energy

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$732,124,000
Budget Estimate, 2012...................................     754,028,000
House allowance.........................................     733,633,000
Committee recommendation................................     583,834,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $6,300,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends $583,834,000 for Nuclear Energy.
    The events at the Fukushima-Daiichi facilities in Japan 
have resulted in a reexamination of our Nation's policies 
regarding the safety of commercial reactors and the storage of 
spent nuclear fuel. These efforts have been supported by 
appropriations in this bill, and the Committee provides funding 
for continuation and expansion of these activities.
    While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found that 
spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely for at least 60 years 
in wet or dry cask storage beyond the licensed life of the 
reactor, the Committee has significant questions on this matter 
and is extremely concerned that the United States continues to 
accumulate spent fuel from nuclear reactors without a 
comprehensive plan to collect the fuel or dispose of it safely, 
and as a result faces a $15,400,000,000 liability by 2020. The 
Committee approved funding in prior years for the Blue Ribbon 
Commission on America's Nuclear Future [BRC], which was charged 
with examining our Nation's policies for managing the back end 
of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommending a new plan. The BRC 
issued a draft report in July 2011 with recommendations, which 
is expected to be finalized in January 2012. The Committee 
directs prior existing funding, contingent on the renewal of 
its charter, to the BRC to develop a comprehensive revision to 
Federal statutes based on its recommendations, to submit to 
Congress for its consideration.
    The Committee directs the Department to develop and prepare 
to implement a strategy for the management of spent nuclear 
fuel and other nuclear waste within 3 months of publication of 
the final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's 
Nuclear Future. The strategy shall reduce long-term Federal 
liability associated with the Department's failure to pick up 
spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors, and it should 
propose to store waste in a safe and responsible manner. The 
Committee notes that a sound Federal strategy will likely 
require one or more consolidated storage facilities with 
adequate capacity to be sited, licensed, and constructed in 
multiple regions, independent of the schedule for opening a 
repository. The Committee directs that the Department's 
strategy include a plan to develop consolidated regional 
storage facilities in cooperation with host communities, as 
necessary, and propose any amendments to Federal statute 
necessary to implement the strategy.
    Although successfully disposing of spent nuclear fuel 
permanently is a long-term effort and will require statutory 
changes, the Committee supports taking near- and mid-term steps 
that can begin without new legislation and which provide value 
regardless of the ultimate policy the United States adopts. The 
Committee therefore includes funding for several of these steps 
in the Nuclear Energy Research and Development account, 
including the assessment of dry casks to establish a scientific 
basis for licensing; continued work on advanced fuel cycle 
options; research to assess disposal in different geological 
media; and the development of enhanced fuels and materials that 
are more resistant to damage in reactors or spent fuel pools.
    The Committee has provided more than $500,000,000 in prior 
years toward the Next Generation Nuclear Plant [NGNP] program. 
Although the program has experienced some successes, 
particularly in the advanced research and development of TRISO 
fuel, the Committee is frustrated with the lack of progress and 
failure to resolve the upfront cost-share issue to allocate the 
risk between industry and the Federal Government. Although the 
Committee has provided sufficient time for these issues to be 
resolved, the program has stalled. Recognizing funding 
constraints, the Committee cannot support continuing the 
program in its current form. The Committee provides no funding 
to continue the existing NGNP program, but rather allows the 
Department to continue high-value, priority research and 
development activities for high-temperature reactors, in 
cooperation with industry, that were included in the NGNP 
program.

                NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommends $291,667,000 for Nuclear Energy 
Research and Development.
    Use of Prior Existing Balances.--If the Secretary renews 
the charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Department is 
directed to use $2,500,000 of prior existing balances 
appropriated to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management to develop a comprehensive revision to Federal 
statutes based on its recommendations. The recommendation 
should be provided to Congress not later than March 30, 2012 
for consideration.
    Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--The Committee 
recommends $68,880,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling 
Technologies, including $24,300,000 for the Energy Innovation 
Hub for Modeling and Simulation, $14,580,000 for the National 
Science User Facility at Idaho National Laboratory, and 
$30,000,000 for Crosscutting research. The Committee does not 
recommend any funding for Transformative research. The 
Committee recommends that the Department focus the Energy 
Innovation Hub on the aspects of its mission that improve 
nuclear powerplant safety.
    Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing 
Technical Support.--The Committee provides no funding for Light 
Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical 
Support.
    Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and 
Demonstration.--The Committee provides $31,870,000 for Reactor 
Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration. Of this 
funding, $21,870,000 is for Advanced Reactor Concepts 
activities. The Committee does not include funding for the Next 
Generation Nuclear Plant Demonstration project. The Department 
may, within available funding, continue high-value, priority 
research and development activities for high-temperature 
reactor concepts, in cooperation with industry, that were 
conducted as part of the NGNP program. The remaining funds, 
$10,000,000, are for research and development of the current 
fleet of operating reactors to determine how long they can 
safely operate.
    Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee 
recommends $187,917,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and 
Development. Within available funds, the Committee provides 
$10,000,000 for the Department to expand the existing modeling 
and simulation capabilities at the national laboratories to 
assess issues related to the aging and safety of storing spent 
nuclear fuel in fuel pools and dry storage casks. The Committee 
includes $60,000,000 for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition, and 
directs the Department to focus research and development 
activities on the following priorities:
  --$10,000,000 for development and licensing of standardized 
        transportation, aging, and disposition canisters and 
        casks;
  --$3,000,000 for development of models for potential 
        partnerships to manage spent nuclear fuel and high 
        level waste; and
  --$7,000,000 for characterization of potential geologic 
        repository media.
    The Committee provides funding for evaluation of 
standardized transportation, aging and disposition cask and 
canister design, cost, and safety characteristics, in order to 
enable the Department to determine those that should be used if 
the Federal Government begins transporting fuel from reactor 
sites, as it is legally obligated to do, and consolidating 
fuel. The Committee notes that the Blue Ribbon Commission on 
America's Nuclear Future has, in its draft report, recommended 
the creation of consolidated interim storage facilities, for 
which the Federal Government will need casks and canisters to 
transport and store spent fuel.
    The Committee also requests that the Department revisit the 
recommendations of the 2006 National Academies report titled 
``Going the Distance: the Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel 
and High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States,'' as 
recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear 
Future in its draft report. The Committee shares the view of 
the Blue Ribbon Commission that ``NAS recommendations that have 
not yet been implemented, for whatever reason, should be 
revisited and addressed as appropriate.'' The Department is 
directed to report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment 
of this act on its plan to revisit these recommendations.
    The Committee further recommends $59,000,000 for the 
Advanced Fuels program. With the increased funding the 
Department is directed to give priority to developing enhanced 
fuels and cladding for light water reactors to improve safety 
in the event of accidents in the reactor or spent fuel pools. 
While the Committee acknowledges the value of engineering 
upgrades and regulatory enhancements to ensure the safety of 
the Nation's current fleet of nuclear reactors following the 
disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant, it is 
becoming increasingly clear that failure of the nuclear fuel 
upon loss of coolant was the ultimate cause of the destruction 
of the Japanese reactors and the extensive environmental 
damage. The Committee continues to support the Department's 
advanced fuels activities, in particular the ongoing coated 
particle fuel (deep burn) effort, and urges that special 
technical emphasis and funding priority be given to activities 
aimed at the development and near-term qualification of 
meltdown-resistant, accident-tolerant nuclear fuels that would 
enhance the safety of present and future generations of Light 
Water Reactors. Last, the Department is directed to report to 
the Committee, within 90 days of enactment of this act, on its 
plan for development of meltdown-resistent fuels leading to 
reactor testing and utilization by 2020.
    International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.--The Committee 
recommends $3,000,000 for International Nuclear Energy 
Cooperation.

                   RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    Space and Defense Infrastructure.--The Committee provides 
$69,888,000 for Space and Defense Infrastructure, including 
$15,000,000 for nuclear infrastructure at Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory.
    The Committee encourages the Department, within available 
funds, to provide the base infrastructure funding such that all 
strategic nuclear materials and engineering facilities are 
maintained in full compliance with Department of Energy 
operational and safety orders and directives for nuclear 
infrastructure and to ensure these facilities are capable of 
serving Department mission needs in nuclear research and 
development.
    Plutonium-238 Production Restart Project.--The Committee 
provides no funding for the Plutonium-238 Production Restart 
project.

                      IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee provides $136,000,000 for Idaho Facilities 
Management.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development


                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$584,529,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     452,975,000
House allowance.........................................     476,993,000
Committee recommendation................................  \2\445,471,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $140,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.
\2\Does not include proposed rescission of $187,000,000.

    The Committee recommends $445,471,000 for Fossil Energy 
Research and Development, including the use of $23,007,000 of 
prior-year balances as proposed in the request. This is 
$7,504,000 less than the budget request which reflects a 
reduction in program direction to fiscal year 2011 levels. The 
Committee also rescinds $187,000,000 in prior year funds.
    CCS and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends 
$291,358,000 for CCS and Power Systems, the same as the 
request. The Committee recognizes and encourages the Department 
of Energy to provide funding for regional carbon sequestration 
partnerships, including those that are seeking to identify 
geologic formations, using seismic reflection technology, 
suitable for carbon sequestration. Using computer modeling, 
investigations should assess the storage potential of 
underground reservoirs, the potential volume of carbon dioxide 
that can be stored, the effect of storing carbon dioxide in the 
reservoir, and the length of time carbon dioxide may be stored. 
Studies should also address how injecting carbon dioxide in 
underground reservoirs could increase the amount of natural gas 
that can be recovered from coalbed methane wells near the 
reservoirs.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $151,729,000 
for program direction, which will remain available until 
September 30, 2014.
    Other Programs.--The Committee recommends $16,794,000 for 
Plant and Capital Equipment; $7,897,000 for Fossil Energy 
Environmental Restoration; and $700,000 for Special Recruitment 
Programs. Within available funds, the Committee directs the 
Department to continue the Risk Based Data Management System. 
The Committee directs the Department to continue funding 
methane hydrates research within the Office of Fossil Energy.

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

Appropriations, 2011....................................  \1\$22,954,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      14,909,000
House allowance.........................................      14,909,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,909,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $2,100,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends $14,909,000 for Naval Petroleum 
and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee requests the Department provide a report on the 
Department's obligations related to the reserves and a time-
line for exiting from responsibility for the reserves.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$209,441,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     192,704,000
House allowance.........................................     192,704,000
Committee recommendation................................     192,704,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $86,300,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends $192,704,000 for the operation of 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The recommendation does not 
include the budget's proposed rescission of $71,000,000 as that 
was already included in the fiscal year 2011 continuing 
resolution.
    The Committee notes that the Department has continued to 
ignore the statutory directive in Public Law 111-8 to submit a 
report to Congress regarding the effects of expanding the 
Reserve on the domestic petroleum market by April 27, 2009. The 
Department has not yet submitted the report, and continues to 
fail to meet other congressionally mandated deadlines without 
explanation or cause. Although now nearly 2\1/2\ years delayed, 
the information requested in the report continues to be 
pertinent to policy decisions, and the Secretary is directed to 
submit the report as expeditiously as possible to the 
Committee.

                      Strategic Petroleum Account

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   -$250,000,000
House allowance.........................................    -500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................    -500,000,000

    The fiscal year 2012 budget request proposes a non-
emergency sale of oil valued at $500,000,000. The sale of oil 
will free up space in the reserve in order to conduct necessary 
maintenance.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve


                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $10,978,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   \1\10,119,000
House allowance.........................................   \1\10,119,000
Committee recommendation................................   \1\10,119,000

\1\Does not include proposed rescission of $100,000,000.

    The Committee recommends $10,119,000 for the Northeast Home 
Heating Oil Reserve as requested. The Reserve was sold in early 
2011 to transition to low-sulfur heating oil. The budget 
request proposes, and the Committee supports, the cancellation 
of any excess revenues from the sale which is scored as a 
saving of $100,000,000.

                   Energy Information Administration

Appropriations, 2011....................................  \1\$95,409,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     123,957,000
House allowance.........................................     105,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     105,000,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $86,300,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for the Energy 
Information Administration. The Committee notes that the Energy 
Information Administration has announced that it will not 
release the 2007 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 
[CBECS] due to data and sample flaws resulting from the survey 
method employed. The 2003 CBECS remains the most current survey 
of commercial building efficiency used as the baseline for The 
Energy Star program at U.S. EPA, the U.S. Green Building 
Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] 
program, and Green Globes. In light of the age of the 2003 
survey and the failure of the 2007 study, the Committee 
recommends that the Energy Information Administration complete 
a new Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey during 
fiscal year 2012.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$224,350,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     219,121,000
House allowance.........................................     254,121,000
Committee recommendation................................     219,121,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $900,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee's recommendation for Non-Defense 
Environmental Cleanup is $219,121,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2012, the 
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between 
operating expense funded projects within the controls listed 
below using guidance contained in the Department's budget 
execution manual (DOE M 135.1-1A, chapter IV). All capital 
construction line item projects remain separate controls from 
the operating projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the 
House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all 
reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the 
Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of 
congressional response. The Committee recommends the following 
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2012:
  --Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and 
        Decommissioning;
  --Gaseous Diffusion Plants;
  --Small Sites; and
  --West Valley Demonstration Project.
    Internal Reprogramming Authority.--Headquarters 
Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one 
time, between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety 
risks, gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a 
program or project is not increased or decreased by more than 
$2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year.
    The reprogramming authority--either formal or internal--may 
not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding 
levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased 
by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on 
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 
30 days after the use of the internal reprogramming authority.
    Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and 
Decommissioning.--The Committee recommends $2,703,000.
    Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--The Committee recommends 
$100,588,000.
    Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $57,430,000. The 
Committee is aware of the lack of remediation activity at 
various DOE-sponsored facilities and small sites characterized 
as under the responsibility of DOE, such as national 
laboratories and small experimental nuclear research reactors. 
The Committee directs the Department to submit detailed action 
plans within 3 months of enactment of this act for remediating 
these sites and sponsored facilities.
    West Valley Demonstration Project.--The Committee 
recommends $58,400,000.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$506,984,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     504,169,000
House allowance.........................................     449,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     429,000,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $9,900,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee's recommendation is $429,000,000 to sustain 
cleanup activities at uranium enrichment facilities. Of the 
funds provided, $77,780,000 is recommended to the Paducah 
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, $162,747,000 is recommended for the 
East Tennessee Technology Park, and $188,473,000 is recommended 
for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. With these funds 
and any transfers of uranium from the Department's inventory, 
the Department is encouraged to maintain its current 
accelerated cleanup schedule at the Portsmouth site to the 
degree possible, consistent with the Committee's direction 
below. The Department is also directed to consider all Federal 
sites in allocating services for cleanup resulting from any 
uranium transfers.
    Although the Committee recognizes the use of uranium 
transfers to accelerate cleanup at Federal sites, the Committee 
expresses continued concern with the Department's lack of 
oversight and transparency of this program. The Government 
Accountability Office [GAO] has twice found DOE's 
administration of the program in violation of Federal law. 
According to GAO, the Department has violated the miscellaneous 
receipts statute, which requires Government agencies to deposit 
money received from any source into the Treasury. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to ensure the Department's uranium 
transfer program is in compliance with Federal law.
    The Committee is also frustrated by the Department's 
refusal to submit the program to congressional oversight. The 
Department continues to ignore the Committee's requests to be 
notified of basic information about the program, such as the 
dates and amounts of uranium prior to the consummation of a 
transfer. Although the Department had previously requested to 
be allowed to voluntarily notify the Committee of information 
regarding the program, it has failed to do so, and the 
Committee accordingly includes language to codify notification 
requirements and expects the Department to adhere strictly to 
them. Because the Department is dealing with such significant 
sums of taxpayer dollars in an off-budget manner, it should 
expect Congress to scrutinize this program.
    The Committee also expresses concern about the Department's 
market impact analyses required under the USEC Privatization 
Act prior to any sale or transfer of uranium. The scope of the 
previous market impact analysis included the calendar years of 
2011, 2012, and 2013. The price of uranium continues to be 
volatile, and attempting to make predictions months in 
advance--let alone 3 years--is extremely speculative and may 
not justify a determination that certain transfers would not 
adversely affect the uranium industry. The Committee includes 
language to allow the Department to cover only 2 years in the 
future for each market impact analysis.
    Finally, the Committee includes a requirement for the 
Department to conduct an economic feasibility study on the re-
enrichment of depleted uranium tailings that are located at 
Federal sites. Although there are currently 60,000 cylinders of 
depleted uranium located at Federal sites, the Department has 
no updated plan or timeline for either re-enriching high-assay 
tails or disposing of them. The Department is directed to 
consider the economic feasibility of re-enriching these 
materials, taking into account factors including safety, cost, 
national security, the costs of storage and disposal, and the 
enrichment capacity at domestic sites. The Department is 
directed to prepare and submit this economic feasibility study 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to 
December 31, 2011.

                                SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2011...................................\1\$4,857,665,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   5,416,114,000
House allowance.........................................   4,800,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,842,665,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $15,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends $4,842,665,000. The Committee 
believes this level of funding will maintain U.S. leadership in 
science and technology during a time of significant funding 
constraints. Investments in basic research will lead to new and 
improved energy technologies and the construction and operation 
of new, large-scale scientific facilities will be vitally 
important for many areas of science as well as private 
industry, such as pharmaceutical and aerospace companies. 
Funding for advanced computing will also position the United 
States to maintain international leadership in scientific 
computing and simulation over the next decade.
    Office of Science Priorities.--The Committee commends the 
Office of Science for identifying three clear priorities for 
basic scientific research:
  --the discovery and design of new materials for the 
        generation, storage, and use of energy,
  --better understanding of microorganisms and plants for 
        improved biofuels production, and
  --the development and deployment of more powerful computing 
        capabilities to take advantage of modeling and 
        simulation to advance energy technologies and maintain 
        U.S. economic competitiveness.
    Office of Science Advisory Committee.--The Committee 
encourages the Office of Science to continue prioritizing 
within its broad scientific portfolio to help accelerate the 
discovery of new energy technologies for a clean energy future, 
especially during a time of fiscal constraints. The Committee 
also encourages the Office of Science to establish an advisory 
committee that would help the Secretary of Energy and the 
Director of the Office of Science prioritize among the 
different areas of basic research. An independent advisory 
committee for the Office of Science could provide valuable 
advice at a time of declining budgets on research priorities, 
determining the proper balance among the different disciplines, 
and what areas of basic research would best maintain U.S. 
scientific leadership and a technical workforce.
    Project Management.--While scientific exploration without 
use-inspired goals is important to advancing science, 
innovation, and American intellectual property, Department of 
Energy funded research is ultimately centered on energy-focused 
goals. Within that context, most Office of Science research 
should have concrete goals, and most research should have 
measurable performance. The Department is therefore directed to 
create a performance ranking of all ongoing multi-year research 
projects across Basic Energy Sciences, Fusion Energy, High 
Energy Physics, Nuclear Energy, Biological and Environmental 
Research, and Advanced Supercomputing Research, including those 
at universities, national laboratories, Energy Frontier 
Research Centers, Energy Innovation Hubs and other recipients, 
by comparing current performance with original project goals.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommends $1,693,860,000 for Basic Energy 
Sciences. Of these funds, $151,400,000 is provided for 
construction activities as requested in the budget. The 
remaining $1,542,460,000 is for research. Within the research 
funds provided, up to $100,000,000 shall be used to support the 
46 Energy Frontier Research Centers. The Committee encourages 
the Department to continue interim science and management 
reviews during these centers' 5-year award period to maintain 
proper oversight and ensure that the centers continue to pursue 
fundamental research needed to accelerate breakthroughs in 
clean energy technologies.
    The Committee recommends $24,300,000 for the Fuels from 
Sunlight energy innovation hub and $20,000,000 for a new Hub 
for Batteries and Energy Storage. The Committee also recommends 
$10,000,000 for predictive modeling of internal combustion 
engines. In 2007, the engine company Cummins achieved a 
milestone in engine design by bringing a diesel engine to 
market solely with computer modeling. The diesel engine is 
being used in more than 200,000 Dodge Ram pickup trucks. The 
only testing was after-the-fact to confirm performance, which 
significantly reduced development time and cost. Building on 
this success, developing more advanced computer models for 
engines holds the promise of increasing the efficiency of 
current engines in the short to medium term by 50 percent for 
automobiles and 30 percent for trucks, which would reduce 
carbon emissions and the country's dependence on foreign oil. 
This research would also demonstrate the feasibility of using 
renewable fuels, such as biofuels, in internal combustion 
engines.
    The Committee also recommends $37,000,000 for major items 
of equipment, including $11,500,000 for new instruments and 
$5,500,000 for a power upgrade at the Spallation Neutron Source 
at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, $8,000,000 for design and 
engineering work to enhance the capabilities of the Linac 
Coherent Light Source at SLAC, and $12,000,000 for equipment 
for the new National Synchrotron Light Source facility at 
Brookhaven. The Committee recommends no funding for upgrades to 
the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory or to 
build a new electron microscope. The Committee is concerned 
about outyear liabilities for major construction projects and 
upgrades to facilities at a time of flat or declining budgets. 
Upgrades to the Advanced Photon Source and the Linac Coherent 
Light Source both have estimated costs of over $300,000,000. 
The Office of Science should consider phasing these projects to 
reflect the highest priority or demonstrate how it can build 
both concurrently without significant impacts to basic 
research.
    The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] to support 
science and technology programs in States that have 
historically received relatively less Federal research funding.
    The Committee directs the Office of Basic Energy Sciences 
[BES] to implement the recommendations in the April 2010 Basic 
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee report on ways to strengthen 
the link between basic research and industry. One of the 
report's main conclusions was that more direct feedback, 
communication, and collaboration between industrial and BES 
scientists was needed to better identify scientific roadblocks 
to emerging clean energy technologies, address the scientific 
challenges, and transfer the results to industry for 
commercialization. BES-supported scientists need to be better 
informed of the detailed scientific issues facing industry and 
industry more aware of BES capabilities and how to utilize 
them.
    The Committee understands that catalysis is the key 
enabling technology for transportation fuel production today 
and further advances in catalysis are required to develop 
advanced fuels from domestic sources that use the country's 
existing energy infrastructure and are the lowest cost path to 
reducing oil imports. The Committee encourages the Office of 
Science to continue catalysis research. The Committee also 
encourages the Office of Science in partnership with 
universities to support research and development of novel 
device materials for alternative energy applications.
    The Committee encourages the Department of Energy in 
partnership with universities to support research and 
development of advanced nanostructure polymer-particle 
composite materials for improved ultra-capacitor devices. The 
Committee also encourages the Department to continue funding to 
support research and development needs of graduate and post-
graduate science programs at Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    The Committee recommends $621,823,000 for Biological and 
Environmental Research. The Committee recommends $295,079,000 
for climate and environmental sciences. The Committee 
recognizes the unique contributions of this program in 
advancing climate research. DOE has stationary and mobile 
facilities around the world that collect data on climate change 
and the world's best high-performance computers to develop 
sophisticated climate models to help decisionmakers understand 
the impact of climate change. Despite advances in climate 
models, there is still uncertainty in predicting how climate 
change may impact future energy use, land use, food production, 
and water resources and affect regional stability. The 
Committee supports DOE's efforts in improving the reliability 
and accuracy of climate models by resolving two major areas of 
uncertainty--the effect of clouds and aerosols on climate. The 
Committee encourages DOE to continue using data obtained from 
satellite sensors operated by other Federal agencies in 
addition to ground based data to produce the most accurate and 
reliable information for climate modeling.
    The Committee also supports research related to producing 
biomass-based biofuels to reduce the country's dependence on 
fossil-based transportation fuels. The Committee understands 
that making efficient use of organic materials to make biofuels 
continues to be a major challenge. The Committee agrees that a 
top priority should be developing biomass feedstocks than can 
produce the most biomass at the least cost and take into 
account environmental factors, such as water consumption, 
competition with food production, and insect resistance. The 
Committee believes that synthetic biology, which involves 
designing new biological parts, devices and systems for 
specific purposes, will accelerate major breakthroughs not only 
in biofuels, but also in other important energy and 
environmental missions of the Department. The Committee directs 
the Secretary of Energy, not later than 9 months after 
enactment of this act, in consultation with other relevant 
Federal agencies, the academic community, research based 
nonprofit entities, and the private sector, to submit a 
comprehensive synthetic biology plan for federally supported 
research and development activities that will support the 
energy and environmental missions of the Department and enable 
a competitive synthetic biology industry in the United States. 
The plan shall assess the need to create a database for 
synthetic biology information, the need and process for 
developing standards for biological parts, components, and 
systems, and funding requirements for implementing the plan.
    Within the funds provided, $20,000,000 shall be used for 
radiobiology to help determine health risks from exposures to 
low levels of ionizing radiation to properly protect radiation 
workers and the general public. The Fukushima Daiichi disaster 
in Japan is an opportunity to learn about the impacts of the 
disaster on human health and apply lessons learned to make more 
informed decisions on protection if a similar accident occurs 
in the future, including dose trip points for evacuation and 
shelter-in-place orders. Within the funds provided, $12,000,000 
is to continue nuclear medicine research with human 
application. The Committee notes that DOE-funded nuclear 
medicine research has led to numerous achievements in patient 
care, such as cutting-edge nuclear medicine imaging and therapy 
procedures, including PET scans, that are crucial for 
identifying the presence of cancer in the body and cardiac 
stress tests to analyze heart function.

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Committee recommends $441,619,000 for Advanced 
Scientific Computing Research. The Committee recommends 
$90,000,000 for the exascale initiative to spur U.S. innovation 
and increase the country's ability to address critical national 
challenges. The Committee understands that exascale computing 
will help maintain U.S. industrial competitiveness. In 
particular, high-tech industries such as transportation, 
aerospace, nuclear energy, and petroleum will increasingly rely 
on high-performance computing, especially when traditional 
experiments would be impossible, dangerous, or inordinately 
costly to perform.
    The Committee understands that the Department will have the 
lead Government role in computing research and development. The 
Department's role in developing more advanced computing 
platforms is even more important with the elimination of the 
DARPA High Performance Computing program. For this reason, the 
Committee supports the budget request for the Leadership 
Computing Facilities, which will enable Oak Ridge and Argonne 
National Laboratories to move forward with upgrades to their 
Cray XT5 and IBM Glue Gene/P systems, respectively. These 
upgrades will ensure that they remain on track to be the most 
powerful supercomputers in the world and represent an important 
step in the Department's research effort to develop the first 
exascale system.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    The Committee recommends $780,200,000 for High Energy 
Physics. With the shutdown of the Tevatron at Fermilab at the 
end of fiscal year 2011 and the successful operation of the 
most powerful energy particle collider in the world, the Large 
Hadron Collider in Switzerland, U.S. dominance of the energy 
frontier has come to an end. However, the Committee understands 
that the United States has an opportunity to lead in the 
intensity frontier. Specifically, the United States has unique 
capabilities that should be exploited to develop a world-
leading program of neutrino science to understand the role 
neutrinos play in the evolution of the universe and design new 
particle beams and highly sensitive detectors to advance this 
area of science. The Committee directs the Office of Science to 
submit a report not later than 180 days of enactment that lays 
out
  --the expected benefits of intensity frontier science,
  --a strategy for maintaining the U.S. lead, and
  --the funding needs over the next 10 years, including 
        construction activities, of implementing the proposed 
        strategy.
    The Committee provides no construction funds for the Long 
Baseline Neutrino Experiment. The Committee is concerned that 
this project is not mature enough for construction because a 
location for this experiment in an underground laboratory has 
not yet been selected and the decision of the National Science 
Foundation to discontinue construction funding for the Deep 
Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory in South Dakota 
has created uncertainty about the future of the project. In 
addition, the Office of Science has not yet selected a 
technology, which affects where the experiment can be located 
and total cost.
    The Committee also recommends $15,000,000 as requested--
$10,000,000 from the High Energy Physics program and $5,000,000 
from the Nuclear Physics program--to support minimal, 
sustaining operations at the Homestake Mine in South Dakota. 
The Committee is aware of the National Science Foundation's 
decision. However, the Committee encourages the Office of 
Science to examine cost-effective options for using the mine to 
stage critical experiments related to neutrino and dark matter 
research.
    The Committee understands that powerful new accelerator 
technologies created for basic science and developed by 
industry will produce particle accelerators with the potential 
to address key economic and societal issues confronting our 
Nation. However, the Committee is concerned with the divide 
that exists in translating breakthroughs in accelerator science 
and technology into applications that benefit the marketplace 
and American competitiveness. The Committee directs the 
Department to submit a 10-year strategic plan by June 1, 2012 
for accelerator technology research and development to advance 
accelerator applications in energy and the environment, 
medicine, industry, national security, and discovery science. 
The strategic plan should be based on the results of the 
Department's 2010 workshop study, Accelerators for America's 
Future, that identified the opportunities and research 
challenges for next-generation accelerators and how to improve 
coordination between basic and applied accelerator research. 
The strategic plan should also identify the potential need for 
demonstration and development facilities to help bridge the gap 
between development and deployment.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The Committee recommends $550,114,000 for Nuclear Physics. 
The Committee recommends $55,000,000 in construction funds for 
the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, which the 
Nuclear Physics Advisory Committee concluded was the highest 
priority for the Nation's nuclear physics program. The 
Committee also recommends $24,000,000 for the Facility for Rare 
Isotope Beams.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommends $335,463,000 for Fusion Energy 
Sciences. The Department is directed to submit a 10-year plan, 
not later than 12 months after enactment of this act, on the 
Department's proposed research and development activities in 
magnetic fusion under four realistic budget scenarios. The 
report shall (1) identify specific areas of fusion energy 
research and enabling technology development in which the 
United States can and should establish or solidify a lead in 
the global fusion energy development effort and (2) identify 
priorities for facility construction and facility 
decommissioning under each of the four budget scenarios. The 
Department is encouraged to use a similar approach adopted by 
the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel that 
developed a 10-year strategic plan for the Department's high 
energy physics program.
    Of the $24,741,000 requested for the High Energy Density 
Laboratory Plasma program, $12,000,000 shall be spent on heavy-
ion fusion, laser-driven fusion, and magneto-inertial fusion to 
be evenly distributed among these three areas of science. A 
recent Department of Energy report on scientific grand 
challenges for fusion energy sciences identified these three 
areas of research as critical toward advancing inertial fusion 
energy. In particular, the Committee does not understand why 
the Department would redirect funding for magnetized high-
energy-density plasma research after the panel report found 
that this approach has the potential to significantly reduce 
power requirements compared to conventional inertial 
confinement fusion and could permit fusion development without 
building multi-billion dollar facilities.
    The Committee is concerned about the impact ITER will have 
on the domestic fusion energy budget. Based on DOE budget 
estimates, DOE will be requesting between $300,000,000 to 
$400,000,000 a year from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 to help 
build ITER. If current trends of declining or flat budgets 
continue, almost all of the fusion energy sciences budget will 
be consumed by ITER. The Committee encourages DOE to find a 
solution to this problem without compromising the scientific 
and technical expertise residing at U.S. universities, labs, 
and industrial partners.
    The Committee encourages the Office Fusion Energy Sciences 
Program to closely collaborate with the Office of Basic Energy 
Sciences, the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, 
the Office of Nuclear Energy, and the National Nuclear Security 
Administration to address mutual needs for technology 
development in magnetic fusion, inertial fusion, and next-
generation fission reactor concepts. One focus area of these 
collaborations should be on identifying, characterizing, and 
developing new materials that can endure the intense neutron 
and heat fluxes expected in these reactor environments. The 
Committee expects the Department to consider these nuclear 
technology needs as it develops its prioritization plan.
    The Committee also encourages the fusion energy program 
take continue taking advantage of high performance computing to 
address scientific and technical challenges on the path to 
fusion energy. The Committee supports the Fusion Simulation 
Program to provide experimentally validated predictive 
simulation capabilities that are critical for ITER and other 
current and planned toroidal fusion devices. Given current and 
future budget constraints, the Committee views this initiative 
as critical to maintain U.S. world leadership in fusion energy 
in a cost-effective manner.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee provides $136,800,000 to support 
infrastructure activities. Within these funds, $25,000,000 
shall be used to accelerate excess facility clean up at the 
national laboratories, which may include remediation of 
seismically deficient buildings and areas in need of 
modernization.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee provides $82,000,000 for Safeguards and 
Security activities.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee provides $180,786,000 for the Office of 
Science Program Direction. No funds shall be used to hire new 
site office personnel, except for field staff at the Integrated 
Support Centers in Chicago and Oak Ridge.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee provides $20,000,000. Of these funds, up to 
$7,500,000 shall be available for the graduate fellowship 
program. The Committee encourages the Office of Science to 
monitor the impact of this program and demonstrate whether 
students continue to pursue careers in scientific and technical 
fields. The Committee commends the Office of Science for 
terminating student and teacher education programs that did not 
have clear program goals and were not effective in encouraging 
students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, 
and math. Limited resources will be better targeted to programs 
that are most effective in developing a skilled scientific and 
technical workforce to address energy, environmental, and 
national security challenges. As the Office of Science 
evaluates the impact of workforce development activities and 
makes changes to the program, the Committee urges the Office of 
Science to look at other uses for these funds, including the 
Distinguished Scientist program authorized in the America 
COMPETES bill.

                         NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2011....................................           (\1\)
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
House allowance.........................................     $25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\Does not include rescission of $2,800,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends no funding for the nuclear waste 
disposal program.

               ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY--ENERGY

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $179,640,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     550,011,000
House allowance.........................................     179,640,000
Committee Recommendation................................     250,000,000

    The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency-Energy [ARPA-E]. ARPA-E is responsible 
for funding high-risk research and development projects to meet 
long-term energy challenges. The Committee understands that 
ARPA-E is currently funding 121 projects. Given the high-risk 
nature of the research, the Committee understands that not all 
of them will be successful. However, if just a fraction of 
ARPA-E funded projects are successful in reaching the 
marketplace, the United States would benefit greatly by 
creating new industries and jobs, making energy technologies 
substantially more efficient and profitable, and accelerating 
the timeframe for achieving energy and security goals. The 
Committee is encouraged that private investors have provided 
$220,000,000 in additional funding to several projects to help 
accelerate development of new, promising technologies. For 
example, a $750,000 ARPA-E award to develop a compressed air 
energy storage system to help integrate renewable energy, such 
as wind, into the grid, attracted $12,000,000 in follow-on 
private funding. ARPA-E funding allowed a company to build an 
improved version of their technology that showed that their 
technology worked and has the potential to store electricity 
anywhere on the grid, which subsequently attracted private 
investment.

              Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program


                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$239,490,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   1,098,000,000
House allowance.........................................     198,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     238,000,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $181,830,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee reiterates its support for the $8,000,000,000 
in loan guarantee authority authorized in Public Law 110-161 
for Advanced Fossil Energy Projects. The Committee recognizes 
the importance of carbon dioxide pipelines to advanced fossil 
energy projects such as advanced coal gasification and 
industrial gasification activities incorporating carbon capture 
and sequestration or other beneficial uses of carbon and the 
Department of Energy is authorized to consider associated costs 
of connected carbon pipelines as eligible under section 1703.

                          OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2011....................................    -$58,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     -38,000,000
House allowance.........................................     -38,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     -38,000,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$181,490,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   1,060,000,000
House allowance.........................................     160,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     200,000,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $181,830,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the cost of 
renewable loan guarantees.

        ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2011....................................      $9,978,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       6,000,000
House allowance.........................................       6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,000,000

    The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced 
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.

            BETTER BUILDINGS PILOT LOAN GUARANTEE INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................    $105,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Committee recommends no funding for the Better 
Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative.

                      Departmental Administration


                                (GROSS)

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$250,139,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     240,623,000
House allowance.........................................      63,374,000
Committee recommendation................................     237,623,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $81,900,000 under Public Law 112-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        (MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2011....................................   -$119,501,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................    -111,883,000
House allowance.........................................    -111,883,000
Committee recommendation................................    -111,883,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$130,638,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     128,740,000
House allowance.........................................     -48,509,000
Committee recommendation................................     125,740,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $81,900,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends $237,623,000 for Department 
Administration.
    An Independent Review of DOE Oversight of National 
Laboratories.--DOE accomplishes most of its activities through 
a network of Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories 
and facilities across the United States. In providing an 
appropriate level of oversight of these contractor-operated 
facilities, DOE must carefully balance the need to protect the 
Government's interests while not overly burdening contractors 
or depriving them of the ability to operate most effectively 
and efficiently. The Committee notes that the National 
Laboratory Directors Council has expressed concerns about 
overly burdensome oversight and operational requirements.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to contract 
with National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] for a 
study that assesses its processes for reviewing contractor 
performance, including performance metrics currently being used 
by DOE for that purpose, as well as assesses the validity and 
applicability of the findings and recommendations of the recent 
Laboratory Directors' report. The Committee has included 
$1,000,000 within the funds available to carry out this 
activity. NAPA shall submit a report to the Committee with 
findings in the above areas and recommendations for improvement 
no later than 9 months after DOE has contracted with NAPA 
pursuant to this directive.

                    Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $42,764,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      41,774,000
House amount............................................      41,774,000
Committee recommendation................................      41,774,000

    The Committee recommends $41,774,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General.

                           WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2011...................................\1\$6,946,398,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................\2\7,629,716,000
House allowance.........................................\2\7,131,993,000
Committee recommendation................................   7,190,000,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $50,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.
\2\Does not include proposed rescission of $40,332,000.

    The Committee recommends $7,190,000,000 for National 
Nuclear Security Administration's [NNSA] Weapons Activities. 
The Committee recognizes the important contributions that 
advanced computing and experimental facilities have made in the 
last few years to the success of the stockpile stewardship 
program and to increase confidence in the safety, security, and 
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. After investing 
billions of dollars over more than a decade, critical 
capabilities are in place to respond to nuclear weapons issues 
without underground nuclear weapons testing. Petascale 
computing capabilities allow weapons scientists and engineers 
to conduct weapons simulations with reasonable efficiency and 
resolution. In the past year, the Dual-Axis Radiographic 
Hydrodynamic Test facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory 
successfully completed four experiments that resolved a long 
open significant finding investigation, improved the basis for 
the assessment of several stockpile systems, and provided data 
to better understand multipoint safety options for possible use 
in future life extension programs. The past year also marked 
the execution of the Barolo series of subcritical experiments 
at the U1a underground facility at the Nevada National Security 
Site. These experiments provided data on the behavior of 
plutonium driven by high explosives, which is critical to 
understanding primary implosions. The National Ignition 
Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory also 
successfully completed its first set of weapon-relevant physics 
experiments to help validate computer models that resolved one 
of the most critical areas of uncertainty in assessing nuclear 
weapons performance.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    The Committee recommends $1,804,882,000 for directed 
stockpile work.
    Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends 
$437,039,000 for the Life Extension Program.
    B61 Life Extension Program.--The Committee is concerned 
about NNSA's plans to incorporate new safety and security 
features in the life extension version of the B61. The B61 life 
extension program will be the most ambitious and extensive 
refurbishment of a weapon system to date. For example, the B61 
has three times as many major components that must be replaced 
as the W76. Further complicating matters is the ambitious 
timeframe for replacing these components before they reach the 
end of their life and affect weapon reliability. In a May 2011 
study, the Government Accountability Office identified 
significant challenges in building the first refurbished weapon 
by 2017, including manufacturing critical materials and 
components, meeting production requirements, ensuring the 
quality of finished products, and coordinating the production 
of bomb components between NNSA and the Air Force. Adding to 
this ambitious scope of work, NNSA plans to incorporate untried 
technologies and design features to improve the safety and 
security of the nuclear stockpile. The Committee supports 
enhanced surety of weapon systems to avoid accidents and 
unauthorized use, but it should not come at the expense of 
long-term weapon reliability. New safety and security features 
should be incorporated in weapon systems when feasible, but the 
primary goal of a life extension program should be to increase 
confidence in warhead performance without underground nuclear 
testing.
    For these reasons, the Committee recommends $180,000,000 
for the B61 life extension program, a reduction of $43,562,000. 
The Committee directs that:
  --the JASON group of scientific advisers submit a classified 
        and unclassified assessment by February 1, 2012 to the 
        House and Senate Appropriations Committees that 
        determines whether proposed intrinsic nuclear warhead 
        safety and security features for the B61 bomb will 
        affect the long-term safety, security, reliability, and 
        operation of the weapon, whether these surety features 
        are justified when measured against the plausible range 
        of deployment scenarios and threats likely to confront 
        the future B61 stockpile, and the benefits outweigh the 
        costs of installing such features; and
  --the Administrator of NNSA and the laboratory directors from 
        Los Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia certify to the House 
        and Senate Appropriations Committees that the benefits 
        of installing intrinsic safety and security features 
        outweigh the costs and there are no less costly and 
        effective alternatives to surety that can be 
        accomplished without introducing intrinsic surety 
        features in the B61 by March 1, 2012.
    In addition, when NNSA completes its Phase 6.2/6.2A study 
for the B61 life extension program, the Committee directs NNSA 
to submit to the Committee both a classified and unclassified 
report 90 days after the completion of the study with:
  --a description of the safety and security features NNSA 
        would add to a refurbished B61 and
  --a cost and benefit analysis of installing the proposed 
        features in the warhead.
    The cost and benefit analysis should include:
  --the costs of science, technology, and engineering to 
        install new safety and security features;
  --the costs of assessing the impact the new features may have 
        on the performance of the nuclear explosive package at 
        the national laboratories;
  --the extent to which the proposed safety and security 
        features address specific safety and security concerns; 
        and
  --why current safety and security features would not be 
        sufficient.
    Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $472,109,000. 
Of these funds, at least $175,000,000 shall be used for 
surveillance activities. The Committee commends NNSA for 
sustaining increased funding for surveillance activities in the 
fiscal year 2012 request. The Committee encourages NNSA to 
continue developing and using non-destructive evaluation 
technologies to economically obtain greater quantities of 
assessment data while reducing warhead or component 
destruction. The Committee also recommends $26,000,000, a 
decrease of $25,087,000 below the request, for the planned W78 
life extension program because of delays in completing the 
Phase 6.1 study.
    Weapons Dismantlement.--The Committee recommends 
$56,770,000 as requested.
    Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $838,964,000. 
Within these funds, at least $64,000,000 shall be used to 
support surveillance activities. The Committee understands that 
NNSA completed building the last W88 war reserve pits in fiscal 
year 2011 and is preparing to transition to build the W87 pit. 
However, the Committee is concerned about NNSA's ability to 
maintain a pit manufacturing capability during the transition. 
The Committee directs NNSA to provide a report to the Committee 
90 days after enactment that:
  --describes how NNSA will maintain a pit manufacturing 
        capability without manufacturing pits;
  --assesses the costs of maintaining a pit manufacturing 
        capability without pit production; and
  --evaluates the costs of developing pit manufacturing 
        capabilities for future requirements.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    The Committee recommends $1,716,407,000 for NNSA Campaigns.
    Science Campaign.--The Committee recommends $347,055,000. 
Within these funds, at least $44,000,000 shall be used for 
plutonium and other physics experiments at Sandia's Z facility. 
The Committee commends Sandia National Laboratory for 
successfully and safely performing two plutonium experiments at 
the refurbished Z facility. The Committee understands that 
these experiments yielded fundamentally new and surprising data 
about the behavior of plutonium at high pressure and this new 
data has been one of the most valuable contributions to the 
stockpile stewardship program. The Committee continues to 
strongly support the weapons physics activities at Sandia's Z 
facility that are critical to sustaining a safe, secure, and 
effective nuclear stockpile.
    No funding shall be used to design, prepare, or execute a 
scaled experiment. The Committee is concerned that a scaled 
experiment, which is a type of subcritical experiment that uses 
plutonium pit-like designs, may not be needed for annual 
assessments of the current stockpile and a new program for 
scaled experiments may interfere with achieving the Nuclear 
Posture Review's goals and schedule. In addition, the Committee 
is concerned that NNSA does not have the diagnostic equipment 
at the Nevada National Security Site to collect the necessary 
data for scaled experiments. Hundreds of millions of dollars 
and several years may be needed to install new radiographic 
capabilities to conduct scientifically meaningful scaled 
experiments. These costs are not included in budget projects 
for future years and the Committee is concerned that adding 
this additional requirement will come at the expense of higher 
priorities. The Committee directs NNSA to wait until the JASON 
study group completes its review of scaled experiments before 
making a decision on whether to proceed with scaled 
experiments. If NNSA decides to conduct scaled experiments, the 
Committee expects NNSA to submit a plan explaining the 
scientific value of scaled experiments for stockpile 
stewardship and meeting the goals of the Nuclear Posture 
Review, the costs of developing the capabilities for and 
conducting scaled experiments, and the impact on other 
stockpile stewardship activities under constrained budgets if 
scaled experiments are pursued.
    Engineering Campaign.--The Committee recommends 
$143,078,000 as requested.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield 
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $476,274,000 as requested. 
Within these funds, at least $62,500,000 and $48,000,000 shall 
be used for inertial confinement fusion activities at the 
University of Rochester's Omega facility and Sandia National 
Laboratory's Z facility, respectively. The Committee encourages 
NNSA to increase pulsed power capabilities at the Z facility by 
increasing available current and attainable pressures and 
radiation, especially for new radiographic capabilities. The 
Committee also recommends at least $5,000,000 as requested for 
the Naval Research Laboratory to continue operating laser 
facilities focused on laser plasma interactions, target 
hydrodynamics, and materials--issues which are important for 
ignition. The Committee recognizes and supports the important 
work of medium scale laser facilities such as Trident at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, Jupiter at Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory, and Nike at the Naval Research Laboratory 
to provide independent peer review of experiments at larger 
scale facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility, and 
help resolve scientific barriers to achieving ignition.
    The Committee recognizes the National Ignition Facility's 
important contribution to resolving a critical stockpile 
stewardship issue related to radiation transport. Scientists 
used the National Ignition Facility to conduct non-ignition 
experiments, which do not require using the full capability of 
the facility, to achieve temperatures and pressures that 
exceeded any other facility and address one of the largest 
sources of uncertainty in calculating weapon performance. These 
experiments validated physics-based models and increased NNSA's 
confidence in assessing the safety, security, and reliability 
of the stockpile. Despite this success, the Committee remains 
concerned about NNSA's ability to achieve ignition--the primary 
purpose of constructing the facility--by the end of fiscal year 
2012 when the National Ignition Campaign ends and the facility 
should transition to regular ignition operations and pursues 
broad scientific applications. The Committee directs NNSA to 
establish an independent advisory board by January 1, 2012 that 
can evaluate experiments planned at the National Ignition 
Facility pre- and post-ignition, identify potential weaknesses 
with the experimental plan, and recommend, if necessary, 
alternative approaches to address scientific and technical 
challenges. The Committee also strongly supports the advisory 
committee's role in setting a strategic direction for inertial 
confinement fusion and high-energy density physics research and 
determining how best to use current facilities to advance this 
scientific field. If the National Ignition Facility does not 
achieve ignition by the end of fiscal year 2012 using a 
cryogenically layered deuterium and tritium target that 
produces a neutron yield with a gain greater than 1, the 
Committee directs NNSA to submit a report by November 30, 2012 
that (1) explains the scientific and technical barriers to 
achieving ignition, (2) the steps NNSA will take to achieve 
ignition with a revised schedule, and (3) the impact on the 
stockpile stewardship program.
    The Committee commends NNSA for taking the first steps in 
soliciting competitive bids for its full portfolio of target 
fabrication contracts. The Committee encourages NNSA to 
consider various criteria when awarding contracts, such as the 
extent to which the contract spurs innovation, lowers costs, 
reduces technical risk, and maintains a competitive multi-
vendor market to avoid relying on one contractor for all future 
target fabrication needs. The Committee also encourages NNSA to 
take advantage of existing and presently underutilized 
fabrication capabilities to meet increased demands for targets 
rather than developing and building new infrastructure. The 
Committee also urges NNSA to develop a long-term plan that 
assesses the demand for targets for inertial confinement fusion 
facilities that support the stockpile stewardship program and 
identifies ways to meet that demand without significant cost 
increases.
    Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee 
recommends $625,000,000. High-performance computing underpins 
NNSA's ability to scientifically resolve outstanding weapons 
performance issues, address material aging and compatibility 
challenges, conduct future life extension program activities, 
and rapidly address results from Significant Findings 
Investigations. As the stockpile continues to age, NNSA will 
require a thousandfold improvement over today's modeling and 
simulation capability, commonly referred to as exascale. 
Therefore, of the funds provided, the Committee recommends 
$36,000,000 as requested for the exascale initiative.
    Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends $125,000,000 
for the Readiness Campaign. Within these funds, no more than 
$60,000,000 shall be used for tritium production efforts.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    The Committee recommends $2,170,546,000. The Committee is 
concerned about the escalating costs for two new nuclear 
facilities to handle plutonium and uranium. The new cost 
estimates for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Replacement-Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory 
and the Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 are two to three 
times more than previous estimates and constructions for these 
two facilities alone may exceed $12,000,000,000 over the next 
decade. An independent Corps of Engineers study that concluded 
that the cost range for the Uranium Processing Facility is 
between $6,500,000,000 and $7,500,000,000 only adds to the 
Committee's concerns. Since completing life extension programs 
to maintain the safety, security, and reliability of the 
stockpile is the highest priority and fiscal constraints will 
limit construction funding, the Committee directs NNSA to 
submit a contingency plan by February 1, 2012 that would 
identify the consequences to cost, scope, and schedule of 
delaying project implementation and the impact of sequencing 
construction of these two major facilities on stockpile 
requirements.
    The Committee supports NNSA's decision to reach the 90 
percent engineering design stage before establishing a project 
baseline and initiating construction of these two nuclear 
facilities. Initiating construction before designs are largely 
complete contributes to increased costs and schedule delays. 
The Committee also agrees with NNSA's decision not to forward 
fund these projects until a project baseline has been 
established and Congress has a more complete understanding of 
the costs.
    The Committee encourages NNSA to develop a plan by the end 
of fiscal year 2012--consistent with NNSA's May 2011 strategic 
plan--to create an open, unclassified research and development 
space known as the Livermore Valley Open Campus that would 
increase interactions and partnerships between Lawrence 
Livermore and Sandia/California National Laboratories as well 
as the private sector and academia. This type of campus would 
help Livermore and Sandia maintain leadership in science, 
technology, and engineering in a wide variety of areas, 
including high-performance computing, energy and environmental 
security, and cybersecurity, and attract the workforce needed 
to fulfill the laboratories' NNSA mission.
    Acquisition Strategy.--The Committee is concerned the 
Department took steps to implement a major new contracting 
strategy in the absence of complete information. Specifically, 
DOE was urged to await a Government Accountability Office 
review of the cost savings NNSA claimed it would achieve by 
combining the Management and Operations contracts at the Y-12 
and Pantex production plants. GAO's preliminary findings did 
not validate that these savings were achievable and GAO has 
informed the Committee that efficiencies could be achieved 
through existing contracting mechanisms. However, NNSA has 
decided to proceed anyway. Many critical activities are at 
stake as NNSA begins to implement the requirements of the 
Nuclear Posture Review and the New START Treaty, while a 
contract overhaul likely will cause significant disruption and 
put these activities at risk. While the Committee strongly 
supports efforts to implement administrative efficiencies at 
all NNSA sites, efficiencies will come about in large part when 
NNSA improves its oversight of contracts.
    Regardless of the outcome of the acquisition strategy, the 
Committee expects all efforts will be taken to ensure a minimum 
of disruption to work associated with the Uranium Processing 
Facility to keep this facility on time and on budget.
    Operations and Maintanance.--The Committee recommends 
$1,555,278,000 for the Readiness in Technical Base and 
Facilities Operations and Maintenance account. Of these funds:
    Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends 
$1,411,000,000.
    Program Readiness.--The Committee recommends the requested 
amount of $69,170,000.
    Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee recommends 
$80,000,000.
    Containers.--The Committee recommends the requested amount 
of $28,979,000 as requested.
    Storage.--The Committee recommends the requested amount of 
$30,289,000.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $551,108,000.
    Project 12-D-301, TRU Waste Facilities, Los Alamos, New 
Mexico.--The Committee recommends $9,881,000 as requested to 
begin construction of a new transuranic waste facility to meet 
regulatory requirements of the State of New Mexico.
    Project 11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos, 
New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to begin the 
second phase of this effort to mitigate safety risks to workers 
identified by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. NNSA 
has unobligated funds that can be used to fund additional 
upgrades to the facility.
    Project 10-D-501, Nuclear Facility Risk Reduction, Y-12, 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $35,287,000 as 
requested to upgrade equipment and infrastructure in buildings 
9212 and 9204-2E for continued safe uranium operations until 
the new Uranium Processing Facility is operational.
    Project 09-D-404, Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase 
II, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--The 
committee recommends $25,168,000 as requested to refurbish non-
nuclear capabilities, such as rocket sled tracks and mechanical 
shock facilities, to test weapons components needed for the B61 
and future life extension programs.
    Project 08-D-802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex 
Plant, Amarillo, Texas.--The Committee recommends $66,960,000 
as requested to build a new facility to make high explosive 
hemispheres for nuclear weapons that is more reliable and can 
meet the projected workload for life extension programs.
    Project 07-D-140, Project Engineering and Design [PED], 
Various Locations.--The Committee recommends $3,518,000 as 
requested to complete design work on the Transuranic Waste 
Facilities Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    Project 06-D-141, PED, Uranium Process Facility, Y-12, Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $160,194,000 as 
requested.
    Project 04-D-125 Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility 
Replacement Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los 
Alamos, New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $240,000,000. 
Within these funds, $35,000,000 is to complete equipment 
installation at the Radiological Laboratory, $125,000,000 is 
for design activities to reach 90 percent design maturity by 
the end of the fiscal year, $40,000,000 is for long-lead 
procurements, and $40,000,000 is for site preparation.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation 
Asset program is $251,272,000, the same as the budget request.

               NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

    The Committee recommends full funding of the nuclear 
counterterrorism incident response program. The Committee 
provides $222,147,000 as requested.

             FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

    The Committee recommends $96,380,000 for Facilities and 
Infrastructure Recapitalization activities, consistent with the 
budget request. The Committee is concerned about an increasing 
backlog of deferred maintenance costs within NNSA's nuclear 
weapons laboratories and production facilities. Based on a 
March 2011 NNSA assessment, deferred maintenance costs are 
expected to increase by $70,000,000 a year. The Facilities and 
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program has only reduced some 
of the backlog in deferred maintenance and this program will 
end in fiscal year 2013. To increase transparency in NNSA's 
efforts to sustain existing physical infrastructure, the 
Committee directs NNSA to identify funds for maintenance and 
operations by site as separate line items under the Readiness 
in Technical Base and Facilities Account starting with the 
fiscal year 2014 budget submission. The sites include the three 
national security labs, the Y-12 National Security Complex, the 
Kansas City Plant, the Savannah River Site, and the Nevada 
National Security Site. The budget justification shall include 
an explanation of how NNSA plans to manage deferred maintenance 
costs, including ways NNSA will stabilize deferred maintenance 
for mission critical facilities and dispose of excess capacity. 
Further, the budget shall include total deferred maintenance 
backlog and how much NNSA is spending at each site each year to 
reduce deferred maintenance. The Committee recommends using the 
Office of Science's Science Laboratories Infrastructure budget 
information on deferred maintenance as a model. Further, the 
Committee is concerned by a recent Government Accountability 
Office finding that NNSA does not have accurate, reliable, or 
complete data on the condition and replacement value of its 
almost 3,000 weapons activities facilities. The Committee 
directs NNSA to develop standardized practices for assessing 
the condition of its facilities and review the sites' 
methodologies for determining replacement value to ensure 
consistency, accuracy, and completeness through the complex.

                            SITE STEWARDSHIP

    The Committee recommends $90,000,000. The Committee 
supports NNSA's efforts to consolidate and dispose of NNSA 
special nuclear material that is no longer required for the 
nuclear weapons mission.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation for the Safeguards and 
Security Program is $828,366,000.
    Defense Nuclear Security Operations and Maintenance.--The 
Committee recommends $701,752,000. The Committee support NNSA's 
efforts to reduce costs related to securing national 
laboratories and production sites while still maintaining 
effective physical security measures at each site. The 
Committee encourages NNSA to continue eliminating unnecessary 
costs while still protecting facilities' assets and resources 
against theft, sabotage, and other criminal acts.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $11,752,000 as 
requested.
    Project 08-D-701 Nuclear Materials Safeguards and Security 
Upgrades Project Phase II, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The 
Committee recommends the requested level of $11,752,000 for 
this project.
    Cybersecurity.--The Committee recommends the full request 
of $126,614,000.

            SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING CAPABILITY

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Science, 
Technology, and Engineering Capability activities. The 
Committee supports NNSA's efforts to leverage its science, 
engineering, and technological expertise to work with the 
Defense Threat Reduction Agency and intelligence agencies to 
improve the Nation's counterterrorism capabilities. The 
Committee also supports activities to build and sustain 
analytical capabilities at Los Alamos, Sandia, and Livermore to 
assess the nuclear and biological weapons capabilities of 
foreign adversaries to support the intelligence community. The 
Committee notes that $30,000,000 was provided in the 2009 
Supplemental Appropriations Act to help build the technical 
capabilities for nuclear and biological weapons assessments. 
The Committee is concerned, however, that DOE's Office of 
Intelligence is not fully utilizing these newly constituted 
capabilities and sustaining the human talent needed to address 
national security issues. The Committee encourages DOE's Office 
of Intelligence to further develop the analytical capabilities 
needed to fully utilize these improved scientific, technical, 
and engineering capabilities at the national security labs.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation


                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2011...................................\1\$2,318,653,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................\2\2,549,492,000
House allowance.........................................\2\2,056,770,000
Committee recommendation................................\3\2,404,300,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $45,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.
\2\Does not include proposed rescission of $30,000,000.
\3\Does not include proposed rescission of $21,000,000.

    The Committee recommends $2,383,300,000 for Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation, which includes a rescission of $21,000,000 of 
prior-year unobligated funds. The Committee commends NNSA for 
making significant progress in meeting the goal of securing all 
vulnerable nuclear materials within 4 years. In 2009, the 
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United 
States found that ``the surest way to prevent nuclear terrorism 
is to deny terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons or fissile 
materials . . . An accelerated campaign to close or secure the 
world's most vulnerable nuclear sites as quickly as possible 
should be a top national priority.'' To that end, since April 
2009, when President Obama announced the 4-year goal, NNSA has 
removed over 960 kilograms of highly enriched uranium--enough 
material for 38 nuclear weapons. NNSA has also removed all 
highly enriched uranium from six countries. One of these 
countries was Libya. Given the recent unrest in Libya, the 
presence of this dangerous nuclear material in an unstable part 
of the world would have increased the risk of nuclear 
terrorism. Removing highly enriched uranium from six countries 
in 2 years is much faster than one country a year NNSA has 
averaged in the last 13 years. Further, NNSA has completed 
security upgrades at 32 additional buildings in Russia 
containing weapons usable materials. The Committee encourages 
NNSA to continue its accelerated efforts to secure vulnerable 
nuclear materials.

       NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommends $417,598,000 as requested to 
support investment in developing advanced nuclear detection 
technologies. Within available funds, $5,710,000 should be used 
for the Global Seismographic Network [GSN] Equipment Renewal 
project. The GSN, among other things, has 46 sites--the single 
largest contribution--that monitor compliance with the 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and could detect foreign 
nuclear tests. However, GSN equipment, such as sensors, is more 
than 15 years old, obsolete, and increasingly difficult to 
effectively maintain. The committee supports this one-time 
investment to purchase new equipment to sustain and maintain 
GSN's critical monitoring activities.
    The Committee supports research and development activities 
to develop new tools, technologies, techniques, and expertise 
to improve detection of nuclear weapons technology and special 
nuclear materials. However, the Committee is concerned that 
NNSA is not doing enough to transfer new technologies to its 
customers, including the Department of Homeland Security and 
intelligence agencies. The Committee encourages NNSA to develop 
better performance metrics that measure not only improvements 
in existing technologies but also the extent to which new 
technologies are adopted and used by its customers. NNSA should 
also be able to explain how the development of novel 
technologies reduced the threat to national security posed by 
nuclear weapon proliferation or detonation and the illicit 
trafficking of nuclear materials.
    The Committee also supports NNSA's efforts to develop and 
build space based sensors to detect surface, atmospheric, or 
space nuclear detonations. However, the Committee is concerned 
that the requirements for these space based sensors have not 
changed since the Eisenhower administration and new 
capabilities may be required to detect illicit activities 
beyond just nuclear detonations. The Committee directs NNSA to 
work with U.S. Strategic Command, the Air Force, and other 
Department of Defense agencies to review the requirements for 
space based sensors, determine whether new requirements are 
needed to detect a broader and more diverse set of nuclear 
threats, the resource needs to implement new requirements, and 
the extent to which new space based sensors can increase 
capabilities at a lower cost than current technologies.
    The Committee also encourages NNSA to accelerate efforts to 
find alternatives to helium-3 for radiation detection 
technologies, especially portal monitors that are deployed at 
ports and border crossings to detect radiation and prevent the 
smuggling of nuclear material into the United States. The 
Committee is concerned that critical shortages of this gas may 
limit deployments of this critical technology. NNSA's success 
in finding alternatives will benefit other Government agencies.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $155,305,000. The Committee 
recommends $14,972,000, a reduction of $3,500,000, for the 
Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention. The Committee 
believes that this program to assist weapons scientists in 
Russia and other countries needs to be reassessed. NNSA has not 
provided sufficient justification to the Committee on the 
continuing nonproliferation benefits of this program, 
especially the continuing threat posed by scientists in Russia 
and other countries who once worked on weapons of mass 
destruction programs, and whether improved economic conditions 
in these countries merit U.S. aid. The Committee directs NNSA 
to reassess this program and determine whether it is still 
needed based on the proliferation risk posed by weapons 
scientists in Russia and other countries. If the program is 
still needed, NNSA should develop a well-defined strategy to 
more effectively target the scientists of highest proliferation 
concern and have a clear exit strategy, including specific 
criteria to determine when specific countries are ready to 
graduate from the program.

       INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

    The Committee recommends $571,639,000. The Committee is 
encouraged by NNSA's efforts in completing security upgrades at 
213 out of 229 buildings that store weapons usable nuclear 
material and warheads in Russia and other former Soviet 
countries. These upgrades directly support the U.S. effort to 
secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within 
4 years by securing warheads and weapons-exploitable nuclear 
materials at their source. The Committee is also encouraged by 
NNSA's efforts in preventing and detecting the illicit transfer 
of nuclear materials by installing radiation detection 
equipment at 399 sites--365 borders, airports, and strategic 
ports and 34 megaports across the world.
    The Committee understands that materials protection, 
control, and accounting work in Russia will continue past 
fiscal year 2013--the original deadline for this program. The 
Committee supports continued cooperation between the United 
States and Russia, but the United States must receive an 
assurance from Russia that it will assume full responsibility 
for sustaining U.S.-provided nuclear security systems over the 
long term. The Committee directs NNSA to work with the State 
Department to request future spending plans from the Russian 
Government to have a clearer sense of Russian intentions on 
funding nuclear security programs.
    While NNSA has made considerable progress in securing 
Russian nuclear warheads and materials at numerous sites, the 
Committee believes more progress is needed in consolidating and 
reducing the number of locations in Russia with nuclear 
materials and phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium at 
Russian research reactors and related facilities. A recent 
Government Accountability Office report found that NNSA's plans 
involved removing highly enriched uranium from 5 sites and 50 
buildings by 2010, but it has only removed material from 1 site 
and 25 buildings. In addition, of the 71 highly enriched 
uranium-fueled research reactors and related facilities in 
Russia, only 3 have been shut down. The Committee believes 
accelerating material consolidation will provide a higher level 
of security at lower potential cost and reactor shut downs and 
conversion will reduce quantities of weapons-usable materials 
potentially accessible in Russia.
    The Committee understands that NNSA plans to establish 
Nuclear Security Centers of Excellence in China and India. The 
purpose of these centers is to help implement international 
efforts to lock down and remove vulnerable nuclear materials 
around the world and advance nuclear security best practices, 
research and development, and bilateral and regional 
initiatives. The U.S. role is limited to providing technical 
advice and equipment for nuclear safeguards and security. While 
China has taken concrete steps toward procuring land and 
developing a detailed design for building a center of 
excellence, the Committee is concerned about delays in 
establishing a center in India and how NNSA would use available 
funding to help develop and support the center. If by the end 
of third quarter of fiscal year 2012, NNSA, India, and other 
relevant international counterparts have not finalized an 
agreement that, among other things, specifies the overall cost 
estimate for the center, details how NNSA funding will be 
utilized to develop and support the center, and spells out 
Indian and other international cost-sharing arrangements in 
support of the center, the Committee directs NNSA to reprogram 
the $7,000,000 for the Indian center to the Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative's Nuclear and Radiological Material 
Removal program and notify the Committee as to how these funds 
have been reprogrammed.

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

    The Committee recommends $751,489,000 to support the 
plutonium disposition program and construction projects.
    U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee 
recommends $250,435,000 including $224,000,000 for the U.S. 
plutonium disposition and $26,435,000 as requested for the U.S. 
uranium disposition programs.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $500,054,000 to 
support construction of three facilities at Savannah River in 
South Carolina--the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility 
[MFFF], the Waste Solidification Building, and the Pit 
Disassembly and Conversion [PDC] project. These facilities will 
dispose of at least 34 metric tons of plutonium by fabricating 
it into mixed oxide fuel for domestic nuclear reactors. The 
Committee remains concerned with the overall management of the 
U.S. plutonium disposition program. The Committee notes a 
history of rising costs and schedule delays in the construction 
of these major disposition facilities, and believes that 
further costs increases or delays in program implementation may 
result from several pending NNSA decisions to reconfigure key 
program elements. In particular, the Committee is concerned by 
the prolonged delay by NNSA and DOE in achieving a CD-1 
decision on the consolidation of the Pit Disassembly and 
Conversion Facility and the Plutonium Preparation Project into 
a new Pit Disassembly and Conversion capability, a possible 
redesign of the PDC program to produce plutonium feedstock at a 
lower rate than currently planned, and a proposed redesign of 
MFFF to allow production of MOX fuel suitable for 
use in boiling water reactors and next generation light water 
reactors. The Committee further notes wavering interest and 
lack of firm commitments from U.S. utilities to irradiate 
MOX fuel in their reactors. For these reasons, the 
Committee directs NNSA to provide a report no later than 
December 31, 2011 with:
  --updated cost and schedule estimates for both PDC and MFFF;
  --the anticipated startup date for both MFFF and PDC;
  --the sources of and strategy for providing plutonium 
        feedstock in the gap period between start up of MFFF 
        operations and availability of feedstock from PDC;
  --the status of agreements from U.S. utilities to irradiate 
        MOX fuel in their reactors, the deadline to 
        obtain such agreements, and the status of contingency 
        plans NNSA has developed should it fail to achieve such 
        agreements with utilities; and
  --the timeframe for completing disposition of 34 metric tons 
        of U.S. surplus plutonium.
    The Committee is aware that MFFF faced schedule delays and 
cost increased because of difficulties in identifying suppliers 
and subcontractors with the ability and experience to fabricate 
and install equipment that met strict quality assurance 
standards and requirements for nuclear work. The lack of 
experienced nuclear equipment suppliers resulted in a lack of 
competition for work and higher than expected bids. NNSA also 
had to station dedicated MOX facility quality 
assurance and engineering personnel at supplier and 
subcontractor stations to train personnel and ensure fabricated 
equipment and installations met requirements. Based on the 
lessons learned from this construction project and the large 
investment NNSA made to train nuclear equipment suppliers, the 
Committee directs NNSA to establish a working group that meets 
regularly composed of project managers and key management, 
acquisition, and procurement staff of MFFF and NNSA's three 
other major construction projects--UPF, CMRR-NF, and PDC--to 
share lessons learned and help new construction projects stay 
on time and on budget.
    Project 99-D-143, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, 
Savannah River, South Carolina.--The Committee recommends 
$435,172,000. This increase represents a transfer of 
$50,000,000 from Other Project Costs for the Mixed Oxide Fuel 
Fabrication Facility to construction to keep construction on 
schedule and help install ventilation equipment, process 
piping, and electrical equipment and assemble and test 
gloveboxes.
    Project 99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building, 
Savannah River, South Carolina.--The Committee recommends full 
funding of $17,582,000 for this project.
    Project 99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly and Conversion 
Facility, Savannah River, South Carolina.--The Committee 
recommends $47,300,000 because NNSA has not completed a study 
of alternatives or a conceptual design report with a new cost 
and schedule range that is required under DOE guidance before 
construction can begin.
    Russian Surplus Materials Disposition.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000, a reduction of $9,174,000. No funding 
shall be used to support research and development of the Gas 
Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor in Russia. The Committee 
understands that the United States committed $400,000,000, 
subject to future appropriations, to help Russia dispose of 34 
metric tons of excess weapon-grade plutonium, but the Committee 
will not provide funding for this effort until NNSA can explain 
how the United States would spend the $400,000,000 and the 
milestones that Russia must meet before the United States 
releases any of those funds.

                   GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

    The Committee recommends $508,269,000 as requested. The 
Committee recommends the full request of $148,269,000 for the 
reactor conversion program. The Committee supports NNSA's 
efforts to accelerate the shut down or conversion of research 
reactors that use highly enriched uranium [HEU] around the 
world. HEU-fueled research reactors have some of the world's 
weakest security measures and a determined terrorist could use 
HEU reactor fuel for a nuclear device. The Committee agrees 
that eliminating these HEU stockpiles should be a priority and 
directly supports efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear 
materials because once a reactor is converted or shut down, the 
HEU fuel can be shipped to the United States or Russia for 
permanent disposition and would no longer pose a threat. 
Despite the slow progress in converting or shutting down HEU-
fueled research reactors in Russia, the Committee commends NNSA 
for reaching agreements quickly with other countries, such as 
China and the Czech Republic, to convert or shut down their 
reactors. The Committee also supports related activities such 
as developing high density low enriched uranium fuel to convert 
high performance HEU-fueled reactors and developing a 
capability which does not currently exist in the United States 
to produce Moly-99--a medical isotope used in 16 million 
nuclear medicine procedures in the United States each year--
with low enriched uranium. The Committee notes the significant 
achievement of South Africa's ability to convert their reactor 
from HEU to low enriched uranium fuel to produce Moly-99 and 
that the United States received the first shipment of Moly-99 
produced with low enriched fuel in December 2010.
    The Committee continues to support efforts to remove, 
dispose, and protect domestic nuclear and radiological 
materials. Nuclear and radiological materials are located at 
more than 2,500 facilities in the United States. Domestic 
stockpiles of nuclear and radioactive materials could be used 
by terrorist groups in an improvised nuclear device or a 
radiological dispersal device, or dirty bomb, in the United 
States. The Committee understands that the Department of Energy 
is responsible for disposing of many types of low-level 
radioactive materials because there are no commercial disposal 
options. The Committee commends the Department for reducing 
domestic public health and national security threats by 
recovering over 27,000 disused, unwanted and orphan sources in 
the United States and securing over 250 buildings.

                             Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$960,176,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   1,153,662,000
House allowance.........................................   1,030,600,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,100,000,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $1,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends $1,100,000,000 for Naval Reactors. 
In fiscal year 2010, NNSA began work on three significant 
projects: design of a reactor plant for new OHIO-class 
ballistic missile submarines, refueling of a land-based reactor 
prototype, and construction of a new spent fuel facility. Based 
on current projections, funding for these three projects will 
grow from $200,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 to over $600,000,000 
in fiscal year 2015. In the current budget environment, the 
Committee is concerned that there may not be sufficient funds 
to fund all three projects concurrently. The Committee directs 
the Office of Naval Reactors to submit a contingency plan by 
February 1, 2012 that would sequence these three major 
projects. The plan should identify the highest priority 
project, justify which project or projects could be delayed, 
and explain the consequences to cost, scope, and schedule of 
delaying project implementation.

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$398,993,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     450,060,000
House allowance.........................................     400,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     404,000,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $5,700,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommends $404,000,000 for the Office of the 
Administrator. The Committee strongly supports NNSA's efforts 
to improve Federal oversight of major nuclear construction 
projects, such as the Uranium Processing Facility and the 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Facility. The Committee 
believes NNSA must do more to build confidence it has the 
ability to execute large line item construction projects within 
budget and on schedule.

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2011...................................\1\$4,991,638,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   5,406,781,000
House allowance.........................................   4,937,619,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,002,308,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $11,900,000 or transfer of $33,633,000 
to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund under 
Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Cleanup is $5,002,308,000. Within the total provided, the 
Department is directed to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker 
Training Program.
    Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2012, the 
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between 
operating expense funded projects within the controls listed 
below using guidance contained in the Department's budget 
execution manual (DOE M 135.1-1A, chapter IV). All capital 
construction line item projects remain separate controls from 
the operating projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the 
House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all 
reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the 
Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of 
congressional response. The Committee recommends the following 
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2012:
  --Closure Sites;
  --Hanford Site;
  --Idaho National Laboratory;
  --NNSA Sites;
  --Oak Ridge Reservation;
  --Office of River Protection;
  --Savannah River Site;
  --Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
  --Program Direction;
  --Program Support;
  --Technology Development and Deployment;
  --Safeguards and Security; and
  --All Capital Construction Line Items, regardless of site.
    Internal Reprogramming Authority.--The new reprogramming 
control points above obviates, in most cases, the need for 
internal reprogramming authority. However, at the few sites to 
which the internal reprogramming statute still applies, 
Environmental Management site managers may transfer up to 
$5,000,000, one time, between accounts listed above to reduce 
health and safety risks, gain cost savings, or complete 
projects, as long as a program or project is not increased or 
decreased by more than $5,000,000 in total during the fiscal 
year.
    The reprogramming authority--either formal or internal--may 
not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding 
levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased 
by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on 
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 
30 days after the use of the internal reprogramming authority.
    Environmental Management Reorganization.--The Department 
announced on July 8, 2011, its intention to change the 
reporting structure of the Office of Environmental Management, 
the Office of Legacy Management, and the Office of the Chief of 
Nuclear Safety so that these offices would report directly to 
the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security. According to the 
Department, this reorganization is meant to capitalize on the 
expertise that exists throughout the Department on project 
management, nuclear materials and waste, and nuclear safety and 
security. While the Committee shares the Department's desire to 
improve EM project management and nuclear safety and security, 
confusion remains as to how the reorganization will impact day-
to-day operations of EM and how specifically it will result in 
improved project management. The Department failed to provide 
sufficient advance notice of its plans and rationale for these 
plans, resulting in skepticism and frustration amongst DOE 
stakeholders. In addition, it is not clear how the Under 
Secretary for Nuclear Security--who is tasked with implementing 
an ambitious nuclear modernization effort--will be able to 
manage this additional, critical responsibility, without 
detracting from the NNSA mission. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide a detailed plan for implementation of the 
new EM management structure within 30 days of enactment of this 
act.
    Closure Sites.--The Committee recommends $5,375,000 for 
Closure Sites activities.
    Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $953,252,000 for 
Richland Operations. The Committee is aware that the B Reactor 
has been identified as a National Historic Landmark and the 
Department of Energy has stated that the intent is preserving 
the reactor for public access. To ensure this intent is 
accomplished, the Committee believes that it is appropriate to 
use cleanup dollars for the maintenance and public safety 
efforts at the B Reactor. Funding for the Hazardous Materials 
Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] facilities are 
provided for within available funds.
    Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends 
$384,499,000 for Idaho National Laboratory.
    NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $253,767,000 for NNSA 
sites.
    Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends 
$202,509,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation. The amount provided 
includes $40,000,000 to downblend U-233 in Building 3019. It is 
expected this will be a 5-year effort with an annual 
requirement of $40,000,000. In view of the proximity of 
employees at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to this highly 
contaminated facility, this work should be a high priority 
within the Environmental Management program.
    Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommends 
$1,207,000,000 for the Office of River Protection.
    Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends 
$1,190,879,000 for the Savannah River site.
    H-Canyon.--The request for Savannah River proposes to place 
H-Canyon into hot standby pending a determination by the 
Department to begin reprocessing spent fuel. The Committee is 
concerned by EM's plan to meet its statutory requirements to 
maintain the facility in a high state of readiness. H-Canyon is 
a unique national capability for performing large scale 
chemical processing operations that would take considerable 
time and funding to reconstitute if lost. The Department should 
demonstrate it can adequately maintain the condition of the 
chemical processing areas while it deliberates on the 
disposition of spent nuclear fuel. Additionally, as the 
Department continues to analyze ways to address the back end of 
the fuel cycle, the Committee notes the supportive role that H-
Canyon could play in research and development.
    The Committee also notes that with regards to its 
deliberations on spent nuclear fuel, H-Canyon appears to be the 
only available disposition path for nearly 14 metric tons of 
aluminum clad fuel currently residing at SRS and other sites 
around the complex. The decision not to process aluminum clad 
fuel may require the Department to spend millions of dollars to 
increase the storage space in L-basin to accommodate additional 
aluminum clad fuel. The indefinite storage of this material 
will be costly to the taxpayers and take budgetary focus away 
from other priorities at SRS and around the complex. The 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board noted its opinion that 
there are unintended safety consequences of orphaning this 
material in a letter to Secretary Chu. The Committee directs 
that within 90 days, the Department provide a report to the 
Senate and House Appropriations Committees, as well as the 
Senate and House Armed Service Committees on the disposition 
path for the 14 MT of aluminum clad fuel.
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.--The Committee recommends 
$200,000,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The Committee 
notes the Department submitted a request for $28,771,000 in 
fiscal year 2012 to continue providing economic assistance to 
the State of New Mexico, even though the requirement to provide 
such payments under the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 
Withdrawal Act, as amended, was completed in fiscal year 2011. 
In light of the overall size of this grant relative to other 
State grants that EM makes, as well as other budget 
constraints, the Committee recommends no funding for making a 
voluntary payment under that act in fiscal year 2012.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $321,628,000 
for program direction.
    Program Support.--The Committee recommends $20,380,000 for 
program support.
    Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends 
$252,019,000 for safeguards and security.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
recommends $11,000,000 for technology development and 
deployment. The Department is encouraged to continue successful 
efforts with industry to transfer and demonstrate international 
technologies and approaches to the cleanup program. The 
Committee also encourages the Department to work with industry 
on initiatives which better support the transition of ideas and 
technology into practice.

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$788,420,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     859,952,000
House allowance.........................................     814,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     819,000,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $3,400,000 under Public Law 112-10.

    The Committee recommendation is $819,000,000. The Committee 
provides no funding for acquisition workforce improvement 
because the Department did not provide sufficient justification 
to support this new program.
    The Committee recommends that the Department consider 
changes to the structure of this account. Activities not 
related to defense are included in this account, such as 
hearings on whistleblower complaints, health and safety 
investigations, and safeguards and security at Idaho National 
Laboratory for the Office of Nuclear Energy. Many of these 
activities belong in other accounts, such as Departmental 
Administration or Nuclear Energy, or as separate accounts. The 
Committee encourages the Department to work with the 
Appropriations Committees to better structure this account and 
provide a new account structure to the Committees by February 
1, 2012.
    Health, Safety and Security.--The Committee recommends 
$437,436,000 for the Office of Health, Safety, and Security, 
including $72,058,000 for Health and Safety programs and 
$263,378,000 for Security programs. Within the Security 
programs funding, $186,699,000 is for Specialized Security 
Activities.
    Office of Legacy Management.--The Committee recommends 
$169,740,000, as requested.
    Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security.--The Committee 
recommends $93,350,000, a decrease of $5,150,000, for Idaho 
infrastructure for sitewide safeguards and security.
    Defense-Related Administrative Support.--The Committee 
recommends $114,332,000, a reduction of $4,504,000.
    Office of Hearings and Appeals.--The Committee provides 
$4,142,000 as requested.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

    The Nation's power marketing administrations shall make 
every effort to use available funds and borrowing authority, 
where applicable, to facilitate and fully develop renewable 
energy resources and related transmission capacity in their 
region, and to work in a coordinated fashion with each other 
and regional transmission authorities, public and private 
utilities, and other entities to reduce barriers to greater 
movement of electricity between regions and interconnections to 
promote reliability and the delivery of affordable, clean 
power.

                    BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific 
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000-square-
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects 
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating 
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets 
surplus power with Canada and California. The Committee 
recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal 
year 2011.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee 
recommends no funding, the same as the budget request.

      OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $13,050,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      11,892,000
House allowance.........................................      11,892,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,892,000

    For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee 
recommends $11,892,000, the same as the budget request.

 CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA 
                          POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $108,963,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      95,968,000
House allowance.........................................      95,968,000
Committee recommendation................................      95,968,000

    For the Western Area Power Administration, the Committee 
recommends $95,968,000, the same as the budget request.

           FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2011....................................        $220,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................         220,000
House allowance.........................................         220,000
Committee recommendation................................         220,000

    For the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, 
the Committee recommends $220,000 the same as the request.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $298,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     304,600,000
House allowance.........................................     304,600,000
Committee recommendation................................     304,600,000

                            REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2011....................................   -$298,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................    -304,600,000
House allowance.........................................    -304,600,000
Committee recommendation................................    -304,600,000

    The proposed legislative language requires FERC to 
establish regulations which will assist States that choose to 
do so to develop technology-specific feed-in-tariff programs 
under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Such 
regulations will clarify for general applicability to all 
qualifying facilities findings that FERC made in a series of 
recent orders on issues related to California's feed-in-tariff 
program for small (less than 20 MW), highly efficient combined 
heat and power facilities, at 132 FERC para. 61,047 (July 15, 
2010) (FERC Declaratory Order), 133 FERC para. 61,059 (October 
21, 2010) (FERC Clarification Order), and 134 FERC para. 
61,044, (January 20, 2011) (FERC Rehearing Order).

                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Committee recommendation compared to--
                                       Enacted      Budget estimate  House allowance     Committee    --------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       recommendation      Enacted      Budget estimate  House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE

Energy Efficiency and Renewable
 Energy RDD&D;:
    Hydrogen and fuel cell                 98,000          100,450           91,450           98,000   ...............          -2,450           +6,550
     technologies................
    Biomass and Biorefinery               182,695          340,500          150,000          180,000           -2,695         -160,500          +30,000
     Systems R&D.................;
    Solar energy.................         263,500          457,000          166,143          290,000          +26,500         -167,000         +123,857
    Wind energy..................          80,000          126,859           76,000           80,000   ...............         -46,859           +4,000
    Geothermal technology........          38,003          101,535           38,000           34,000           -4,003          -67,535           -4,000
    Water Power..................          30,000           38,500           50,000           34,000           +4,000           -4,500          -16,000
    Vehicle technologies.........         300,000          588,003          254,000          318,798          +18,798         -269,205          +64,798
    Building technologies........         210,500          470,700          150,000          210,500   ...............        -260,200          +60,500
    Industrial technologies......         108,241          319,784           96,000           96,000          -12,241         -223,784   ...............
    Federal energy management              30,402           33,072           30,000           30,000             -402           -3,072   ...............
     program.....................
    Facilities and
     infrastructure:
        National Renewable Energy          11,705           26,407           26,407           26,407          +14,702   ...............  ...............
         Laboratory [NREL].......
        Construction:
            08-EE-01 Energy                39,295   ...............  ...............  ...............         -39,295   ...............  ...............
             systems integration
             facility National
             Renewal Energy Lab,
             Golden, Colorado....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal,                  51,000           26,407           26,407           26,407          -24,593   ...............  ...............
                 Facilities and
                 infrastructure..

    Program direction............         170,000          176,605          110,000          165,000           -5,000          -11,605          +55,000
    Program support..............          32,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -32,000   ...............  ...............
    Strategic programs...........  ...............          53,204           25,000           25,000          +25,000          -28,204   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Energy Efficiency       1,594,341        2,832,619        1,263,000        1,587,705           -6,636       -1,244,914         +324,705
       and Renewable Energy RDD&D;

Weatherization and
 intragovernmental:
    Weatherization:
        Weatherization assistance         171,000          220,000           30,000          171,000   ...............         -49,000         +141,000
        Training and technical              3,300            3,000            3,000            3,300   ...............            +300             +300
         assistance..............
        Innovations in             ...............          97,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -97,000   ...............
         weatherization..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............         174,300          320,000           33,000          174,300   ...............        -145,700         +141,300

    Other:
        State energy program               50,000           63,798           25,000           50,000   ...............         -13,798          +25,000
         grants..................
        Tribal energy activities.           7,000           10,000           10,000           10,000           +3,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............          57,000           73,798           35,000           60,000           +3,000          -13,798          +25,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal,                       231,300          393,798           68,000          234,300           +3,000         -159,498         +166,300
           Weatherization and
           intragovernmental.....

Floor amendments.................  ...............  ...............           3,800   ...............  ...............  ...............          -3,800
Use of prior year balances.......  ...............         -26,364          -26,364          -26,364          -26,364   ...............  ...............
Rescission.......................         -30,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +30,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND       1,795,641        3,200,053        1,308,436        1,795,641   ...............      -1,404,412         +487,205
       RENEWABLE ENERGY..........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY
           RELIABILITY

Research and development:
    Clean energy transmission and          26,000           60,817           20,000           27,000           +1,000          -33,817           +7,000
     reliability.................
    Smart grid research and                29,000           45,000           33,813           24,000           -5,000          -21,000           -9,813
     development.................
    Energy storage...............          20,000           57,000           20,000           20,000   ...............         -37,000   ...............
    Cyber security for energy              30,000           30,000           30,000           30,000   ...............  ...............  ...............
     delivery systems............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         105,000          192,817          103,813          101,000           -4,000          -91,817           -2,813

Permitting, siting, and analysis.           6,000            8,000            8,000            7,000           +1,000           -1,000           -1,000
Infrastructure security and                 6,100            6,187            6,187            6,000             -100             -187             -187
 energy restoration..............
Program direction................          27,610           31,217           22,000           27,010             -600           -4,207           +5,010
Use of prior year balances.......  ...............            -504             -504   ...............  ...............            +504             +504
Rescission.......................          -3,700   ...............  ...............  ...............          +3,700   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY         141,010          237,717          139,496          141,010   ...............         -96,707           +1,514
       AND ENERGY RELIABILITY....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
          NUCLEAR ENERGY

Research and development:
    Nuclear energy enabling                51,383           97,364           95,014           68,880          +17,497          -28,484          -26,134
     technologies................
    Integrated university program  ...............  ...............           5,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,000
    LWR SMR licensing technical    ...............          67,000           67,000   ...............  ...............         -67,000          -67,000
     support.....................
    Reactor concepts RD&D........;         168,535          125,000          136,986           31,870         -136,665          -93,130         -105,116
    Fuel cycle research and               187,615          155,010          132,000          187,917             +302          +32,907          +55,917
     development.................
    International nuclear energy            2,994            3,000            3,000            3,000               +6   ...............  ...............
     cooperation.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         410,527          447,374          439,000          291,667         -118,860         -155,707         -147,333

Infrastructure:
    Radiological facilities
     management:
        Space and defense                  46,906           49,902           44,014           64,902          +17,996          +15,000          +20,888
         infrastructure..........
        Research reactor                    4,808            4,986            4,986            4,986             +178   ...............  ...............
         infrastructure..........
        PU-238 production restart  ...............          10,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -10,000   ...............
         project.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............          51,714           64,888           49,000           69,888          +18,174           +5,000          +20,888

    INL facilities management:
        INL Operations and                183,604          150,000          155,000          136,000          -47,604          -14,000          -19,000
         infrastructure..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............         183,604          150,000          155,000          136,000          -47,604          -14,000          -19,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal,                       235,318          214,888          204,000          205,888          -29,430           -9,000           +1,888
           Infrastructure........

Program direction................          86,279           93,133           92,000           86,279   ...............          -6,854           -5,721
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nuclear Energy...         732,124          755,395          735,000          583,834         -148,290         -171,561         -151,166

Use of prior year balances.......  ...............          -1,367           -1,367   ...............  ...............          +1,367           +1,367
Rescission.......................          -6,300   ...............  ...............  ...............          +6,300   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY......         725,824          754,028          733,633          583,834         -141,990         -170,194         -149,799
                                  ======================================================================================================================
    FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND
           DEVELOPMENT

CCS and power systems:
    Carbon capture...............  ...............          68,938           68,938           68,938          +68,938   ...............  ...............
    Carbon storage...............  ...............         115,477          115,477          115,477         +115,477   ...............  ...............
    Advanced energy systems......  ...............          64,193          105,000           64,193          +64,193   ...............         -40,807
    Cross-cutting research.......  ...............          42,750           49,347           42,750          +42,750   ...............          -6,597
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, CCS and power      ...............         291,358          338,762          291,358         +291,358   ...............         -47,404
       systems...................

Fuels and Power Systems:
    Innovations for existing               64,869   ...............  ...............  ...............         -64,869   ...............  ...............
     plants......................
    Advanced integrated                    52,894   ...............  ...............  ...............         -52,894   ...............  ...............
     gasification combined cycle.
    Advanced turbines............          30,920   ...............  ...............  ...............         -30,920   ...............  ...............
    Carbon sequestration.........         142,057   ...............  ...............  ...............        -142,057   ...............  ...............
    Fuels........................          11,976   ...............  ...............  ...............         -11,976   ...............  ...............
    Fuel cells...................          49,835   ...............  ...............  ...............         -49,835   ...............  ...............
    Advanced research............          47,614   ...............  ...............  ...............         -47,614   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Fuels and power           400,165   ...............  ...............  ...............        -400,165   ...............  ...............
       systems...................

Natural Gas Technologies.........           1,996   ...............          15,000   ...............          -1,996   ...............         -15,000
Program direction................         151,729          159,233          120,847          151,729   ...............          -7,504          +30,882
Plant and Capital Equipment......          19,960           16,794           16,794           16,794           -3,166   ...............  ...............
Fossil energy environmental                 9,980            7,897            7,897            7,897           -2,083   ...............  ...............
 restoration.....................
Special recruitment programs.....             699              700              700              700               +1   ...............  ...............
Use of prior year balances.......  ...............         -23,007          -23,007          -23,007          -23,007   ...............  ...............
Rescission.......................        -140,000   ...............  ...............        -187,000          -47,000         -187,000         -187,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY                444,529          452,975          476,993          258,471         -186,058         -194,504         -218,522
       RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE
             RESERVES

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale              22,954           14,909           14,909           14,909           -8,045   ...............  ...............
 Reserves........................
Rescission.......................          -2,100   ...............  ...............  ...............          +2,100   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NAVAL PETROLEUM AND           20,854           14,909           14,909           14,909           -5,945   ...............  ...............
       OIL SHALE RESERVES........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Strategic Petroleum Reserve......  ...............         192,704          192,704          192,704         +192,704   ...............  ...............
Storage facilities development...         188,528   ...............  ...............  ...............        -188,528   ...............  ...............
Management for SPR operations....          20,913   ...............  ...............  ...............         -20,913   ...............  ...............
Rescission.......................         -86,300          -71,000   ...............  ...............         +86,300          +71,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, STRATEGIC PETROLEUM          123,141          121,704          192,704          192,704          +69,563          +71,000   ...............
       RESERVE...................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT............  ...............        -250,000         -500,000         -500,000         -500,000         -250,000   ...............

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY                     -16,500   ...............  ...............  ...............         +16,500   ...............  ...............
 (RESCISSION)....................

    NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL
             RESERVE

Northeast Home Heating Oil                 10,978           10,119           10,119           10,119             -859   ...............  ...............
 Reserve.........................
Rescission.......................  ...............        -100,000         -100,000         -100,000         -100,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME                10,978          -89,881          -89,881          -89,881         -100,859   ...............  ...............
       HEATING OIL RESERVE.......
                                  ======================================================================================================================

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Energy Information Administration          95,409          123,957          105,000          105,000           +9,591          -18,957   ...............
Rescission.......................            -400   ...............  ...............  ...............            +400   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY INFORMATION            95,009          123,957          105,000          105,000           +9,991          -18,957   ...............
       ADMINISTRATION............
                                  ======================================================================================================================

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility             3,652            2,703            2,703            2,703             -949   ...............  ...............
 (WA)............................
Gaseous Diffusion Plants.........          99,302          100,588           97,588          100,588           +1,286   ...............          +3,000

Small sites......................          63,730           57,430           55,930           57,430           -6,300   ...............          +1,500
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Small sites......          63,730           57,430           55,930           57,430           -6,300   ...............          +1,500

West Valley Demonstration Project          57,666           58,400           56,900           58,400             +734   ...............          +1,500
Floor amendment..................  ...............  ...............          41,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -41,000
Rescission.......................            -900   ...............  ...............  ...............            +900   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE                  223,450          219,121          254,121          219,121           -4,329   ...............         -35,000
       ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
        URANIUM ENRICHMENT
       DECONTAMINATION AND
       DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Oak Ridge........................  ...............         182,747          182,747          162,747         +162,747          -20,000          -20,000
Paducah..........................  ...............          77,780           77,780           77,780          +77,780   ...............  ...............
Portsmouth.......................  ...............         243,642          188,473          188,473         +188,473          -55,169   ...............
Undistributed funds..............         506,984   ...............  ...............  ...............        -506,984   ...............  ...............
Rescission.......................          -9,900   ...............  ...............  ...............          +9,900   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, UED&D; FUND/URANIUM           497,084          504,169          449,000          429,000          -68,084          -75,169          -20,000
       INVENTORY CLEANUP.........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
             SCIENCE

Advanced scientific computing             421,997          465,600          427,093          441,619          +19,622          -23,981          +14,526
 research........................

Basic energy sciences:
    Research.....................       1,526,898        1,833,600        1,547,343        1,542,460          +15,562         -291,140           -4,883
    Construction:
        07-SC-06 Project                  151,297          151,400          140,802          151,400             +103   ...............         +10,598
         engineering and design
         [PED] National
         Synchrotron light source
         II [NSLS-II]............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Basic             1,678,195        1,985,000        1,688,145        1,693,860          +15,665         -291,140           +5,715
             energy sciences.....

Biological and environmental
 research:
    Biological systems science...         316,744          376,262   ...............         326,744          +10,000          -49,518         +326,744
    Climate and environmental             295,079          341,638   ...............         295,079   ...............         -46,559         +295,079
     sciences....................
    Research.....................  ...............  ...............         547,075   ...............  ...............  ...............        -547,075
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Biological and            611,823          717,900          547,075          621,823          +10,000          -96,077          +74,748
       environmental research....

Fusion energy sciences program...         375,463          399,700          406,000          335,463          -40,000          -64,237          -70,537

High-energy physics:
    Research.....................         795,420          756,200          759,070          756,200          -39,220   ...............          -2,870
    Construction:
        11-SC-40 Project           ...............          17,000           15,810   ...............  ...............         -17,000          -15,810
         engineering and design
         [PED] long baseline
         neutrino experiment,
         FNAL....................
        11-SC-41 Project           ...............          24,000           22,320           24,000          +24,000   ...............          +1,680
         engineering and design
         [PED] muon to electron
         conversion experiment,
         FNAL....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal.............  ...............          41,000           38,130           24,000          +24,000          -17,000          -14,130
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, High-energy         795,420          797,200          797,200          780,200          -15,220          -17,000          -17,000
             physics.............

Nuclear physics:
    Operations and maintenance...         504,186          539,300          512,000          495,114           -9,072          -44,186          -16,886
    Construction:
        06-SC-01 Project                   35,928           66,000           40,000           55,000          +19,072          -11,000          +15,000
         engineering and design
         [PED] 12 GeV continuous
         electron beam
         accelerator facility
         upgrade, Thomas
         Jefferson National
         Accelerator facility
         (was project 07-SC-001),
         Newport News, Virginia..
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Nuclear             540,114          605,300          552,000          550,114          +10,000          -55,186           -1,886
             physics.............

Workforce development for                  22,600           35,600           17,849           20,000           -2,600          -15,600           +2,151
 teachers and scientists.........

Science laboratories
 infrastructure:
    Infrastructure support:
        Payment in lieu of taxes.           1,382            1,385            1,385            1,385               +3   ...............  ...............
        Excess facility disposal.  ...............  ...............  ...............          25,000          +25,000          +25,000          +25,000
        Oak Ridge landlord.......           5,249            5,493            5,493            5,493             +244   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............           6,631            6,878            6,878           31,878          +25,247          +25,000          +25,000

    Construction:
        11-SC-71 Utility           ...............  ...............  ...............          12,086          +12,086          +12,086          +12,086
         infrastructure
         modernization at TJNAF..
        12-SC-70 Science and user  ...............          12,086           10,273   ...............  ...............         -12,086          -10,273
         support building, SLAC..
        10-SC-70 Research support          40,694           12,024           11,182           12,024          -28,670   ...............            +842
         building and
         infrastructure
         modernization, SLAC.....
        10-SC-71 Energy sciences           14,970           40,000           37,200           40,000          +25,030   ...............          +2,800
         building, ANL...........
        10-SC-72 Renovate science          14,970           15,500           14,415           15,500             +530   ...............          +1,085
         laboratory, Phase II,
         BNL.....................
        09-SC-72 Seismic life-             20,063           12,975           12,066           12,975           -7,088   ...............            +909
         safety, modernization
         and replacement of
         general purpose
         buildings Phase 2, PED/
         Construction, LBNL......
        09-SC-74, Technology and           28,419           12,337           11,473           12,337          -16,082   ...............            +864
         engineering development
         facilities PED, TJNAF...
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal.............         119,116          104,922           96,609          104,922          -14,194   ...............          +8,313
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Science             125,747          111,800          103,487          136,800          +11,053          +25,000          +33,313
             laboratories
             infrastructure......

Safeguards and security..........          83,786           83,900           83,900           82,000           -1,786           -1,900           -1,900

Science program direction:
    Science program direction....         202,520          216,863   ...............         180,786          -21,734          -36,077         +180,786
    Headquarters.................  ...............  ...............          78,028   ...............  ...............  ...............         -78,028
    Office of Science and          ...............  ...............           7,700   ...............  ...............  ...............          -7,700
     Technical Information.......
    Field offices................  ...............  ...............          94,272   ...............  ...............  ...............         -94,272
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science program           202,520          216,863          180,000          180,786          -21,734          -36,077             +786
       direction.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science..........       4,857,665        5,418,863        4,802,749        4,842,665          -15,000         -576,198          +39,916

Rescission.......................         -15,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +15,000   ...............  ...............
Use of prior year balances.......  ...............          -2,749           -2,749   ...............  ...............          +2,749           +2,749
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SCIENCE.............       4,842,665        5,416,114        4,800,000        4,842,665   ...............        -573,449          +42,665
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program...............  ...............  ...............          20,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -20,000
Program direction................  ...............  ...............           5,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,000
Rescission.......................          -2,800   ...............  ...............  ...............          +2,800   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE                 -2,800   ...............          25,000   ...............          +2,800   ...............         -25,000
       DISPOSAL..................
                                  ======================================================================================================================

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-
              ENERGY

ARPA-E projects..................  ...............         521,943           80,000   ...............  ...............        -521,943          -80,000
Program direction................  ...............          28,068           20,000   ...............  ...............         -28,068          -20,000
Undistributed funds..............         179,640   ...............  ...............         250,000          +70,360         +250,000         +250,000
Floor amendment..................  ...............  ...............          79,640   ...............  ...............  ...............         -79,640
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ADVANCED RESEARCH            179,640          550,011          179,640          250,000          +70,360         -300,011          +70,360
       PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 TITLE 17--INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
        GUARANTEE PROGRAM

Administrative operations........          58,000           38,000           38,000           38,000          -20,000   ...............  ...............
Offsetting collection............         -58,000          -38,000          -38,000          -38,000          +20,000   ...............  ...............
Loan volume rescission...........        -181,830   ...............  ...............  ...............        +181,830   ...............  ...............
Additional loan volume...........          11,830          360,000   ...............  ...............         -11,830         -360,000   ...............
Fed participation in title 17      ...............         500,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -500,000   ...............
 loan guarantee projects.........
Additional subsidy cost..........         169,660          200,000          160,000          200,000          +30,340   ...............         +40,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TOTAL, TITLE 17--                    -340        1,060,000          160,000          200,000         +200,340         -860,000          +40,000
         INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
         GUARANTEE PRO-  GRAM....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES
    MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM

Administrative expenses..........           9,978            6,000            6,000            6,000           -3,978   ...............  ...............

   BETTER BUILDINGS PILOT LOAN
       GUARANTEE INITIATIVE

Cost of loan guarantees..........  ...............         100,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -100,000   ...............
Administrative costs.............  ...............           5,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, BETTER BUILDINGS      ...............         105,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -105,000   ...............
       PILOT LOAN INITIATIVE.....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary:
          Program direction......           5,380            5,030            5,000            5,030             -350   ...............             +30
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, Office of the            5,380            5,030            5,000            5,030             -350   ...............             +30
             Secretary...........

    Chief Financial Officer......          57,575           53,204           52,000           53,204           -4,371   ...............          +1,204
    Management...................          68,636           62,693           60,000           62,693           -5,943   ...............          +2,693
    Human capital management.....          25,294           23,089           22,000           23,089           -2,205   ...............          +1,089
    Chief Information Officer....          34,238           36,615           35,000           36,615           +2,377   ...............          +1,615
    Congressional and
     intergovernmental affairs:
        Program direction........           4,428            4,690            4,500            4,690             +262   ...............            +190
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Congressional           4,428            4,690            4,500            4,690             +262   ...............            +190
           and intergovernmental
           affairs...............

    Economic impact and diversity           4,279            5,660            5,660            5,660           +1,381   ...............  ...............
    General Counsel..............          31,997           34,642           30,000           33,553           +1,556           -1,089           +3,553
    Policy and international               20,795           22,429           17,000           20,518             -277           -1,911           +3,518
     affairs.....................
    Public affairs...............           4,129            3,801            3,500            3,801             -328   ...............            +301
    Office of Indian energy                 1,476            1,500            2,000            1,500              +24   ...............            -500
     policy and programs.........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Salaries and              258,227          253,353          236,660          250,353           -7,874           -3,000          +13,693
       expenses..................

    Program support:
        Minority economic impact.           2,000            1,813            1,813            1,813             -187   ...............  ...............
        Policy analysis and                   671              441              441              441             -230   ...............  ...............
         system studies..........
        Environmental policy                  791              520              250              520             -271   ...............            +270
         studies.................
        Climate change technology           5,500            5,482            2,500            5,482              -18   ...............          +2,982
         program (program
         support)................
        Cybersecurity and secure           32,072           21,934           21,934           21,934          -10,138   ...............  ...............
         communications..........
        Corporate management                8,333   ...............  ...............  ...............          -8,333   ...............  ...............
         information program.....
        Corporate IT program       ...............          27,379           27,379           27,379          +27,379   ...............  ...............
         support [CIO]...........
        Energy information                 18,310   ...............  ...............  ...............         -18,310   ...............  ...............
         technology services.....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Program                67,677           57,569           54,317           57,569          -10,108   ...............          +3,252
           support...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal,                       325,904          310,922          290,977          307,922          -17,982           -3,000          +16,945
           Administrative
           operations............

    Cost of work for others......          30,475           48,537           48,537           48,537          +18,062   ...............  ...............
    Floor amendments.............  ...............  ...............        -158,140   ...............  ...............  ...............        +158,140
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental              356,379          359,459          181,374          356,459              +80           -3,000         +175,085
       administration............

Funding from other defense               -106,240         -118,836         -118,000         -118,836          -12,596   ...............            -836
 activities......................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental                 250,139          240,623           63,374          237,623          -12,516           -3,000         +174,249
       administration (gross)....

Rescission.......................         -81,900   ...............  ...............  ...............         +81,900   ...............  ...............
Miscellaneous revenues...........        -119,501         -111,883         -111,883         -111,883           +7,618   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL                  48,738          128,740          -48,509          125,740          +77,002           -3,000         +174,249
       ADMINISTRATION (net)......
                                  ======================================================================================================================
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL..          42,764           41,774           41,774           41,774             -990   ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS.....       9,181,665       12,596,391        8,248,316        8,615,988         -565,677       -3,980,403         +367,672
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

    NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:
    Life extension program:
        B61 Life extension         ...............         223,562          278,562          180,000         +180,000          -43,562          -98,562
         program.................
        W76 Life extension                248,249          257,035          255,000          257,039           +8,790               +4           +2,039
         program.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............         248,249          480,597          533,562          437,039         +188,790          -43,558          -96,523

    Stockpile systems:
        B61 Stockpile systems....  ...............          72,396           72,396           72,396          +72,396   ...............  ...............
        W76 Stockpile systems....  ...............          63,383           63,383           63,383          +63,383   ...............  ...............
        W78 Stockpile systems....  ...............         109,518           99,518           84,000          +84,000          -25,518          -15,518
        W80 Stockpile systems....  ...............          44,444           44,444           44,444          +44,444   ...............  ...............
        B83 Stockpile systems....  ...............          48,215           48,215           48,215          +48,215   ...............  ...............
        W87 Stockpile systems....  ...............          83,943           83,943           83,943          +83,943   ...............  ...............
        W88 Stockpile systems....  ...............          75,728           75,728           75,728          +75,728   ...............  ...............
        Undistributed balance....         646,203   ...............  ...............  ...............        -646,203   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............         646,203          497,627          487,627          472,109         -174,094          -25,518          -15,518

    Weapons dismantlement and
     disposition:
        Operations and                     57,909           56,770           56,770           56,770           -1,139   ...............  ...............
         maintenance.............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Weapons                   57,909           56,770           56,770           56,770           -1,139   ...............  ...............
           dismantlement and
           disposition...........

Stockpile services:
    Production support...........  ...............         354,502          300,441          310,000         +310,000          -44,502           +9,559
    Research and development       ...............          30,264           30,264           30,264          +30,264   ...............  ...............
     support.....................
    R and D certification and      ...............         190,892          165,892          170,000         +170,000          -20,892           +4,108
     safety......................
    Management, technology, and    ...............         198,700          193,000          188,700         +188,700          -10,000           -4,300
     production..................
    Undistributed balance........         932,998   ...............  ...............  ...............        -932,998   ...............  ...............
    Plutonium sustainment........  ...............         154,231          142,231          140,000         +140,000          -14,231           -2,231
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         932,998          928,589          831,828          838,964          -94,034          -89,625           +7,136
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Directed            1,885,359        1,963,583        1,909,787        1,804,882          -80,477         -158,701         -104,905
           stockpile work........

Campaigns:
    Science campaign:
        Advanced certification...          76,495           94,929           19,400           40,000          -36,495          -54,929          +20,600
        Primary assessment                 85,074           86,055           86,055           86,055             +981   ...............  ...............
         technologies............
        Dynamic materials                  96,237          111,836           96,984          110,000          +13,763           -1,836          +13,016
         properties..............
        Advanced radiography.....          23,410           27,058           23,594           26,000           +2,590           -1,058           +2,406
        Secondary assessment               81,303           86,061           86,061           85,000           +3,697           -1,061           -1,061
         technologies............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............         362,519          405,939          312,094          347,055          -15,464          -58,884          +34,961

    Engineering campaign:
        Enhanced surety..........          42,148           41,696           41,696           41,696             -452   ...............  ...............
        Weapons system                     13,443           15,663           15,663           15,663           +2,220   ...............  ...............
         engineering assessment
         technology..............
        Nuclear survivability....          19,665           19,545           19,545           19,545             -120   ...............  ...............
        Enhanced surveillance....          65,676           66,174           66,174           66,174             +498   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............         140,932          143,078          143,078          143,078           +2,146   ...............  ...............

    Inertial confinement fusion
     ignition and high-yield
     campaign:
        Ignition.................         109,287          109,888          109,888          109,888             +601   ...............  ...............
        NIF diagnostics,                   99,651           86,259           86,259           86,259          -13,392   ...............  ...............
         cryogenics, and
         experimental support....
        Pulsed power inertial               4,970            4,997            4,997            4,997              +27   ...............  ...............
         confinement fusion......
        Joint program in high-              3,992            9,100            4,000            9,100           +5,108   ...............          +5,100
         energy density
         laboratory plasmas......
        Facility operations and           259,701          266,030          266,030          266,030           +6,329   ...............  ...............
         target production.......
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............         477,601          476,274          471,174          476,274           -1,327   ...............          +5,100

    Advanced simulation and               610,995          628,945          616,000          625,000          +14,005           -3,945           +9,000
     computing...................
    Readiness campaign:
        Stockpile readiness......          18,903   ...............  ...............  ...............         -18,903   ...............  ...............
        High explosives and                 2,994   ...............  ...............  ...............          -2,994   ...............  ...............
         weapon operations.......
        Nonnuclear readiness.....          21,820           65,000   ...............          65,000          +43,180   ...............         +65,000
        Tritium readiness........          36,811           77,491           63,591           60,000          +23,189          -17,491           -3,591
        Advanced design and                18,064   ...............  ...............  ...............         -18,064   ...............  ...............
         production technologies.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............          98,592          142,491           63,591          125,000          +26,408          -17,491          +61,409
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Campaigns....       1,690,639        1,796,727        1,605,937        1,716,407          +25,768          -80,320         +110,470

Readiness in technical base and
 facilities [RTBF]:
    Operations of facilities:
        Operations of facilities.  ...............  ...............  ...............       1,411,000       +1,411,000       +1,411,000       +1,411,000
        Kansas City Plant........         184,199          156,217          156,217   ...............        -184,199         -156,217         -156,217
        Lawrence Livermore                 79,237           83,990           83,990   ...............         -79,237          -83,990          -83,990
         National Laboratory.....
        Los Alamos National               315,652          318,526          318,526   ...............        -315,652         -318,526         -318,526
         Laboratory..............
        Nevada Test Site.........          79,917           97,559           97,559   ...............         -79,917          -97,559          -97,559
        Pantex...................         121,011          164,848          164,848   ...............        -121,011         -164,848         -164,848
        Sandia National                   116,685          120,708          120,708   ...............        -116,685         -120,708         -120,708
         Laboratory..............
        Savannah River Site......          91,850           97,767           97,767   ...............         -91,850          -97,767          -97,767
        Y-12 Productions Plant...         218,715          246,001          246,001   ...............        -218,715         -246,001         -246,001
        Institutional Site                 40,888          199,638           10,000   ...............         -40,888         -199,638          -10,000
         Support.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............       1,248,154        1,485,254        1,295,616        1,411,000         +162,846          -74,254         +115,384

    Program readiness............          69,170           74,180           69,180           69,170   ...............          -5,010              -10
    Material recycle and recovery          69,910           85,939           75,639           80,000          +10,090           -5,939           +4,361
    Containers...................          27,808           28,979           28,979           28,979           +1,171   ...............  ...............
    Storage......................          24,028           31,272           31,272           30,289           +6,261             -983             -983
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, Readiness in          1,439,070        1,705,624        1,500,686        1,619,438         +180,368          -86,186         +118,752
         technical base and
         facilities..............

    Construction:
        12-D-301 TRU waste         ...............           9,881   ...............           9,881           +9,881   ...............          +9,881
         facility project, LANL..
        11-D-801 TA-55                     19,960           19,402           19,402           10,000           -9,960           -9,402           -9,402
         Reinvestment project II,
         LANL....................
        10-D-501 Nuclear           ...............          35,387           35,387           35,387          +35,387   ...............  ...............
         facilities risk
         reduction Y-12 National
         security complex,
         Oakridge, Tennessee.....
        09-D-404, Test             ...............          25,168           25,168           25,168          +25,168   ...............  ...............
         capabilities
         revitalization II,
         Sandia National
         Laboratory, Albuquerque,
         New Mexico..............
        08-D-802 High explosive            29,940           66,960           66,960           66,960          +37,020   ...............  ...............
         pressing facility Pantex
         Plant, Amarillo, Texas..
        07-D-140 Project                    4,990            3,518            3,518            3,518           -1,472   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         [PED], various loca-
         tions...................
        06-D-140 Project                    3,992   ...............  ...............  ...............          -3,992   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         [PED], various loca-
         tions...................
        06-D-141 Project                  114,786          160,194          160,194          160,194          +45,408   ...............  ...............
         engineering and design
         [PED], Y-12 Uranium
         Processing Facility, Oak
         Ridge, Tennessee........
        04-D-125 Chemistry and            224,550          300,000          200,000          240,000          +15,450          -60,000          +40,000
         metallurgy replacement
         project, Los Alamos
         National Laboratory, Los
         Alamos, New Mexico......
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal.............         398,218          620,510          510,629          551,108         +152,890          -69,402          +40,479
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Readiness         1,837,288        2,326,134        2,011,315        2,170,546         +333,258         -155,588         +159,231
             in technical base
             and facilities......

Secure transportation asset:
    Operations and equipment.....         152,620          149,274          145,274          149,274           -3,346   ...............          +4,000
    Program direction............          94,929          101,998           98,002          101,998           +7,069   ...............          +3,996
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         247,549          251,272          243,276          251,272           +3,723   ...............          +7,996

Nuclear counterterrorism incident         231,005          222,147          222,147          222,147           -8,858   ...............  ...............
 response........................

Facilities and infrastructure              93,296           96,380           96,380           96,380           +3,084   ...............  ...............
 recapitalization program........

Site stewardship:
    Site stewardship.............          89,652          104,002           78,680           90,000             +348          -14,002          +11,320
    Construction:
        11-D-601 Sanitary                  14,970   ...............  ...............  ...............         -14,970   ...............  ...............
         effluent reclamation
         facility LANL...........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Site                  104,622          104,002           78,680           90,000          -14,622          -14,002          +11,320
           stewardship...........

    Safeguards and security:
        Defense nuclear security.         661,602          711,105          679,105          690,000          +28,398          -21,105          +10,895
            Construction:
                08-D-701 Nuclear           51,896           11,752           11,752           11,752          -40,144   ...............  ...............
                 materials S&S;
                 upgrade project
                 Los Alamos
                 National
                 Laboratory......
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Subtotal,             713,498          722,857          690,857          701,752          -11,746          -21,105          +10,895
                 Defense nuclear
                 security........

        Cybersecurity............         123,348          126,614          126,614          126,614           +3,266   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Safeguards and           836,846          849,471          817,471          828,366           -8,480          -21,105          +10,895
           security..............

    Legacy contractor pensions...  ...............  ...............         147,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -147,000
    Science, technology and                19,794   ...............  ...............  ...............         -19,794   ...............  ...............
     engineering capability......
    National security              ...............          20,000   ...............          10,000          +10,000          -10,000          +10,000
     applications................
    Rescission...................         -50,000          -40,332          -40,332   ...............         +50,000          +40,332          +40,332
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES..       6,896,398        7,589,384        7,091,661        7,190,000         +293,602         -399,384          +98,339
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and                      360,986          417,598          346,150          417,598          +56,612   ...............         +71,448
 verification, R&D...............;
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nonproliferation          360,986          417,598          346,150          417,598          +56,612   ...............         +71,448
       & verification R&D........;

Nonproliferation and                      147,494          161,833          161,833          155,305           +7,811           -6,528           -6,528
 international security..........
International nuclear materials           571,994          571,639          496,465          571,639             -355   ...............         +75,174
 protection and cooperation......

Fissile materials disposition:
    U.S. plutonium disposition...         200,400          274,790          244,690          224,000          +23,600          -50,790          -20,690
    U.S. uranium disposition.....          25,985           26,435           16,435           26,435             +450   ...............         +10,000
    Construction:
        MOX fuel fabrication
         facilities:
            99-D-143 Mixed oxide          501,788          385,172          385,172          435,172          -66,616          +50,000          +50,000
             fuel fabrication
             facility, Savannah
             River, South
             Carolina............
            99-D-141-01 Pit                17,000          176,000           20,000           47,300          +30,300         -128,700          +27,300
             disassembly and
             conversion facility,
             Savannah River, SC..
            99-D-141-02 Waste              57,000           17,582           17,582           17,582          -39,418   ...............  ...............
             solidification
             building, Savannah
             River, SC...........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal,                 575,788          578,754          422,754          500,054          -75,734          -78,700          +77,300
                 Construction....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, U.S.            802,173          879,979          683,879          750,489          -51,684         -129,490          +66,610
                 fissle materials
                 disposition.....

    Russian surplus materials                  25           10,174           10,174            1,000             +975           -9,174           -9,174
     disposition.................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Fissile materials            802,198          890,153          694,053          751,489          -50,709         -138,664          +57,436
       disposition...............

Global threat reduction                   435,981          508,269          388,269          508,269          +72,288   ...............        +120,000
 initiative......................
Floor amendment..................  ...............  ...............          35,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -35,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense Nuclear         2,318,653        2,549,492        2,121,770        2,404,300          +85,647         -145,192         +282,530
       Nonproliferation..........

Rescission.......................         -45,000          -30,000          -30,000          -21,000          +24,000           +9,000           +9,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense Nuclear         2,273,653        2,519,492        2,091,770        2,383,300         +109,647         -136,192         +291,530
       Nonproliferation..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR            2,273,653        2,519,492        2,091,770        2,383,300         +109,647         -136,192         +291,530
       NONPROLIFERATION..........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
          NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development.......         887,721        1,069,262          498,700        1,015,600         +127,879          -53,662         +516,900
OHIO replacement reactor systems   ...............  ...............         121,300   ...............  ...............  ...............        -121,300
 development.....................
Naval reactors operations and      ...............  ...............         332,100   ...............  ...............  ...............        -332,100
 infrastructure..................

Construction:
    10-D-903, Security upgrades,              399              100              100              100             -299   ...............  ...............
     KAPL........................
    10-D-904, NRF infrastructure              499           12,000           12,000           12,000          +11,501   ...............  ...............
     upgrades, Idaho.............
    09-D-902, NRF Office Building           3,992   ...............  ...............  ...............          -3,992   ...............  ...............
     #2 ECC upgrade, Idaho.......
    08-D-190, Project engineering          24,950           27,800           27,800           27,800           +2,850   ...............  ...............
     and design, Expended Core
     Facility M-290 recovering
     discharge station, Naval
     Reactor Facility, ID........
    07-D-190, Materials research            2,695   ...............  ...............  ...............          -2,695   ...............  ...............
     tech complex [MRTC].........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Construction.....          32,535           39,900           39,900           39,900           +7,365   ...............  ...............

Program direction................          39,920           44,500           38,600           44,500           +4,580   ...............          +5,900
Rescission.......................          -1,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          +1,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS......         959,176        1,153,662        1,030,600        1,100,000         +140,824          -53,662          +69,400
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator......         398,993          450,060          420,000          404,000           +5,007          -46,060          -16,000
Rescission.......................          -5,700   ...............  ...............  ...............          +5,700   ...............  ...............
Floor amendment..................  ...............  ...............         -20,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +20,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE                393,293          450,060          400,000          404,000          +10,707          -46,060           +4,000
       ADMINISTRATOR.............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
        GENERAL PROVISION

Section 309--Contractor Pay
 Freeze:
    Security.....................  ...............  ...............  ...............         -27,300          -27,300          -27,300          -27,300
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR          10,522,520       11,712,598       10,614,031       11,050,000         +527,480         -662,598         +435,969
       SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Closure Sites:
    Closure sites administration.             175   ...............  ...............  ...............            -175   ...............  ...............
    Closure sites................  ...............           5,375            5,375            5,375           +5,375   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Closure sites.......             175            5,375            5,375            5,375           +5,200   ...............  ...............

Hanford Site:
    Central plateau remediation:
        Nuclear material                   69,102           48,458           68,458           68,458             -644          +20,000   ...............
         stabilization and
         disposition PFP.........
        Solid waste stabilization         128,038          143,897          143,897          143,897          +15,859   ...............  ...............
         and disposition 2035....
        Soil and water                    164,628          222,285          222,285          222,285          +57,657   ...............  ...............
         remediation--groundwater
         vadose zone 2035........
        Nuclear facility D&D--;            139,640           56,288           56,288           56,288          -83,352   ...............  ...............
         remainder of Hanford
         2035....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Central               501,408          470,928          490,928          490,928          -10,480          +20,000   ...............
           plateau remediation...

        River corridor and other
         cleanup operations:
            Nuclear facility D&D;          351,027          330,534          330,534          330,534          -20,493   ...............  ...............
             river corridor
             closure project.....
            Richland community             19,540   ...............  ...............          19,540   ...............         +19,540          +19,540
             and regulatory
             support.............
            SNF stabilization and          94,016          112,250          112,250          112,250          +18,234   ...............  ...............
             disposition.........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, River             464,583          442,784          442,784          462,324           -2,259          +19,540          +19,540
               corridor and other
               cleanup operations
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Hanford Site         965,991          913,712          933,712          953,252          -12,739          +39,540          +19,540

Idaho National Laboratory:
    SNF stabilization and                   7,900           20,114           20,114           18,000          +10,100           -2,114           -2,114
     disposition--2012...........
    Solid waste stabilization and         169,760          165,035          165,035          165,035           -4,725   ...............  ...............
     disposition.................
    Radioactive liquid tank waste         136,850          110,169          110,169          110,000          -26,850             -169             -169
     stabilization and
     disposition.................
    06-D-401, Sodium bearing               12,500   ...............  ...............  ...............         -12,500   ...............  ...............
     waste treatment project, ID.
    Soil and water remediation--           67,764           87,451           87,451           87,451          +19,687   ...............  ...............
     2012........................
    Idaho community and                     3,892   ...............  ...............           4,013             +121           +4,013           +4,013
     regulatory support..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Idaho National               398,666          382,769          382,769          384,499          -14,167           +1,730           +1,730
       Laboratory................

NNSA:
    Lawrence Livermore National    ...............             873              873              873             +873   ...............  ...............
     Laboratory..................
    NNSA Service Center/SPRU.....  ...............           1,500            1,500            1,500           +1,500   ...............  ...............
    Nevada.......................  ...............          63,380           61,380           63,380          +63,380   ...............          +2,000
    Los Alamos National            ...............         357,939          185,000          185,000         +185,000         -172,939   ...............
     Laboratory..................
    Sandia national Laboratory...  ...............  ...............  ...............           3,014           +3,014           +3,014           +3,014
        Undistributed funds......         309,041   ...............  ...............  ...............        -309,041   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, NNSA sites and           309,041          423,692          248,753          253,767          -55,274         -169,925           +5,014
           Nevada off-sites......

Oak Ridge Reservation:
    Building 3019................  ...............  ...............  ...............          40,000          +40,000          +40,000          +40,000
    Nuclear facility D&D; ORNL....  ...............          44,000           39,000           39,000          +39,000           -5,000   ...............
    Nuclear facility D&D; Y-12....  ...............          30,000           30,000           30,000          +30,000   ...............  ...............
    Nuclear facility D&D;, East     ...............             100              100              100             +100   ...............  ...............
     Tennessee Technology Park...
    Soil and water remediation--   ...............           3,000            3,000            3,000           +3,000   ...............  ...............
     offsites....................
    OR reservation community and   ...............  ...............  ...............           6,409           +6,409           +6,409           +6,409
     regulatory support..........
    Solid waste stabilization and  ...............          99,000           84,000           84,000          +84,000          -15,000   ...............
     disposition--2012...........
        Undistributed funds......         152,135   ...............  ...............  ...............        -152,135   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Oak Ridge                152,135          176,100          156,100          202,509          +50,374          +26,409          +46,409
           Reservation...........

Office of River Protection:
    Waste Treatment and
     Immobilization Plant:
        Waste treatment and               379,418          363,000          363,000          363,000          -16,418   ...............  ...............
         immobilization plant 01-
         D-16 A-D................
        Waste treatment and               359,280          477,000          377,000          377,000          +17,720         -100,000   ...............
         immobilization plant 01-
         D-16 E..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Waste                 738,698          840,000          740,000          740,000           +1,302         -100,000   ...............
           Treatment and
           Immobilation Plant....

    Tank Farm activities:
        Rad liquid tank waste             396,900          521,391          408,000          467,000          +70,100          -54,391          +59,000
         stabilization and
         disposition.............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Office of River        1,135,598        1,361,391        1,148,000        1,207,000          +71,402         -154,391          +59,000
           Protection............

Savannah River site:
    Cleanup and waste
     disposition:
        Savannah River community           17,230   ...............  ...............          15,000           -2,230          +15,000          +15,000
         and regulatory support..

    Site risk management
     operations:
        NM stabilization and              261,302          235,000          235,000          235,000          -26,302   ...............  ...............
         disposition.............
        SNF stabilization and              28,327           40,137           40,137           40,137          +11,810   ...............  ...............
         disposition.............
        Solid waste stabilization  ...............          30,040           30,040           30,040          +30,040   ...............  ...............
         and disposition.........
        Radioactive liquid tank           631,122          710,487          667,081          658,722          +27,600          -51,765           -8,359
         waste stabilization and
         disposition.............
        PE&D; Glass Waste Storage   ...............  ...............  ...............           3,500           +3,500           +3,500           +3,500
         Building #3.............
            Construction:
                05-D-405 Salt             234,403          170,071          170,071          170,071          -64,332   ...............  ...............
                 waste processing
                 facility,
                 Savannah River..
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Subtotal,             865,525          880,558          837,152          832,293          -33,232          -48,265           -4,859
                 Radioactive
                 liquid tank
                 waste...........

        Soil and water             ...............          38,409           38,409           38,409          +38,409   ...............  ...............
         remediation.............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Site risk           1,155,154        1,224,144        1,180,738        1,175,879          +20,725          -48,265           -4,859
           management operations.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Savannah River         1,172,384        1,224,144        1,180,738        1,190,879          +18,495          -33,265          +10,141
           site..................

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
    Operate WIPP.................  ...............         228,926          220,000          147,000         +147,000          -81,926          -73,000
    Central Characterization       ...............  ...............  ...............          24,000          +24,000          +24,000          +24,000
     Project.....................
    Transportation...............  ...............  ...............  ...............          29,000          +29,000          +29,000          +29,000
        Undistributed funds......         215,714   ...............  ...............  ...............        -215,714   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Waste Isolation          215,714          228,926          220,000          200,000          -15,714          -28,926          -20,000
           Pilot Plant...........

Program direction................         320,006          321,628          316,948          321,628           +1,622   ...............          +4,680
Program support..................          21,101   ...............  ...............          20,380             -721          +20,380          +20,380
Community, regulatory and program  ...............          91,279           89,779   ...............  ...............         -91,279          -89,779
 support.........................
Safeguards and Security..........         247,781          248,826          248,826          252,019           +4,238           +3,193           +3,193
    Safeguards and security......  ...............         248,826          248,826   ...............  ...............        -248,826         -248,826
        Undistributed funds......         247,781   ...............  ...............  ...............        -247,781   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Safeguards and               495,562          497,652          497,652          252,019         -243,543         -245,633         -245,633
       Security..................

Technology development...........          19,413           32,320           10,000           11,000           -8,413          -21,320           +1,000
Uranium enrichment D&D; fund                33,633   ...............  ...............  ...............         -33,633   ...............  ...............
 contribution....................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense                 5,239,419        5,658,988        5,189,826        5,002,308         -237,111         -656,680         -187,518
       Environmental Clean up....

Use of prior year balances.......  ...............          -3,381           -3,381   ...............  ...............          +3,381           +3,381
Rescission.......................         -11,900   ...............  ...............  ...............         +11,900   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE                    5,227,519        5,655,607        5,186,445        5,002,308         -225,211         -653,299         -184,137
       ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
     OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Health, safety and security:
    Health, safety and security..  ...............         349,445          332,039          335,436         +335,436          -14,009           +3,397
    Program direction............  ...............         107,037           99,369          102,000         +102,000           -5,037           +2,631
        Undistributed funds......         426,933   ...............  ...............  ...............        -426,933   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Health, safety           426,933          456,482          431,408          437,436          +10,503          -19,046           +6,028
           and security..........

Office of Legacy Management:
    Legacy management............         159,117          157,514          155,014          157,154           -1,963             -360           +2,140
    Program direction............          12,504           12,586           12,086           12,586              +82   ...............            +500
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Legacy             171,621          170,100          167,100          169,740           -1,881             -360           +2,640
       Management................

Defense-related activities:
    Infrastructure:
        Idaho sitewide safeguards          77,550           98,500           93,350           93,350          +15,800           -5,150   ...............
         and security............
Defense related administrative            106,240          118,836          118,000          114,332           +8,092           -4,504           -3,668
 support.........................
Office of hearings and appeals...           6,076            4,142            4,142            4,142           -1,934   ...............  ...............
Acquisition workforce improvement  ...............          11,892   ...............  ...............  ...............         -11,892   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other Defense             788,420          859,952          814,000          819,000          +30,580          -40,952           +5,000
       Activities................

Rescission.......................          -3,400   ...............  ...............  ...............          +3,400   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE                785,020          859,952          814,000          819,000          +33,980          -40,952           +5,000
       ACTIVITIES................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY             16,535,059       18,228,157       16,614,476       16,898,608         +363,549       -1,329,549         +284,132
       DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
         POWER MARKETING
        ADMINISTRATIONS\1\

SOUTHEASTERN POWER
 ADMINISTRATION:
    Operation and maintenance:
        Purchase power and                 85,264          114,870          114,870          114,870          +29,606   ...............  ...............
         wheeling................
        Program direction........           7,638            8,428            8,428            8,428             +790   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Operation and          92,902          123,298          123,298          123,298          +30,396   ...............  ...............
           maintenance...........

    Less alternative financing            -14,458          -14,708          -14,708          -14,708             -250   ...............  ...............
     (PPW).......................
    Offsetting collections.......         -78,444         -108,590         -108,590         -108,590          -30,146   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER    ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
       ADMINISTRATION............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER
 ADMINISTRATION:
    Operation and maintenance:
        Operating expenses.......          14,918           14,346           14,346           14,346             -572   ...............  ...............
        Purchase power and                 48,000           50,000           50,000           50,000           +2,000   ...............  ...............
         wheeling................
        Program direction........          27,432           31,889           31,889           31,889           +4,457   ...............  ...............
        Construction.............           6,386           10,772           10,772           10,772           +4,386   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Operation and          96,736          107,007          107,007          107,007          +10,271   ...............  ...............
           maintenance...........

    Less alternative financing...         -13,818          -21,997          -21,997          -21,997           -8,179   ...............  ...............
    Offsetting collections.......         -69,868          -73,118          -73,118          -73,118           -3,250   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER            13,050           11,892           11,892           11,892           -1,158   ...............  ...............
       ADMINISTRATION............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER
 ADMINISTRATION:
    Operation and maintenance:
        Construction and                  109,887          110,449          110,449          110,449             +562   ...............  ...............
         rehabilitation..........
        Operation and maintenance          50,526           72,863           72,863           72,863          +22,337   ...............  ...............
        Purchase power and                542,510          471,535          471,535          471,535          -70,975   ...............  ...............
         wheeling................
        Program direction........         171,582          205,247          205,247          205,247          +33,665   ...............  ...............
        Utah mitigation and                 7,569            3,375            3,375            3,375           -4,194   ...............  ...............
         conservation............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Operation and         882,074          863,469          863,469          863,469          -18,605   ...............  ...............
           maintenance...........

    Less alternative financing...        -271,895         -266,207         -266,207         -266,207           +5,688   ...............  ...............
    Offsetting collections               -349,807         -306,541         -306,541         -306,541          +43,266   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 108-477, Public
     Law 109-103)................
    Offsetting collections                 -3,879           -4,821           -4,821           -4,821             -942   ...............  ...............
     (Public Law 98-381).........
    Offsetting collections (for    ...............        -156,609         -156,609         -156,609         -156,609   ...............  ...............
     program direction)..........
    Offsetting collections (for    ...............         -33,323          -33,323          -33,323          -33,323   ...............  ...............
     O&M;)........................
    Offsetting collections (for          -147,530   ...............  ...............  ...............        +147,530   ...............  ...............
     program direction, O&M;).....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER           108,963           95,968           95,968           95,968          -12,995   ...............  ...............
       ADMINISTRATION............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND
 MAINTENANCE FUND:
    Operation and maintenance....           3,715            4,169            4,169            4,169             +454   ...............  ...............
    Offsetting collections.......          -3,495           -3,949           -3,949           -3,949             -454   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD               220              220              220              220   ...............  ...............  ...............
       O&M; FUND..................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING              122,233          108,080          108,080          108,080          -14,153   ...............  ...............
       ADMINISTRATIONS...........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
            COMMISSION

Federal Energy Regulatory                 298,000          304,600          304,600          304,600           +6,600   ...............  ...............
 Commission......................
FERC revenues....................        -298,000         -304,600         -304,600         -304,600           -6,600   ...............  ...............

        GENERAL PROVISION

Section 309--Contractor Pay
 Freeze:
    Non-Security.................  ...............  ...............  ...............         -46,400          -46,400          -46,400          -46,400
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, General Provisions..  ...............  ...............  ...............         -46,400          -46,400          -46,400          -46,400
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF       25,838,957       30,932,628       24,970,872       25,548,976         -289,981       -5,383,652         +578,104
       ENERGY....................
          (Total amount               (26,533,587)     (31,173,960)     (25,141,204)     (25,930,676)       (-602,911)     (-5,243,284)       (+789,472)
           appropriated).........
          (Rescissions)..........       (-694,630)       (-241,332)       (-170,332)       (-381,700)       (+312,930)       (-140,368)       (-211,368)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection
  totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power purchase and wheeling.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The following list of general provisions is recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
    Section 301. Language is included on unexpended balances.
    Section 302. Language is included on user facilities.
    Section 303. Language is included specifically authorizing 
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 
2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.
    Section 304. The Committee has included a provision related 
to 5-year budgeting.
    Section 305. The Committee has included language related to 
loan guarantee co-pay.
    Section 306. Language is included related to the minor 
construction threshold.
    Section 307. The Committee has included language related to 
minor construction threshold.
    Section 308. The Committee has included a provision on 
mandatory funding.
    Section 309. Language is included related to contractor pay 
freeze.
    Section 310. The Committee has included a provision on 
lighting standards.
    Section 311. The Committee has included a provision on the 
barter of uranium.
    Section 312. The Committee has included a provision on the 
use of metering stations.

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $68,263,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      76,000,000
House allowance.........................................      68,400,000
Committee recommendation................................      58,024,000

    Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission is 
an economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian 
States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. For 
fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends $58,024,000 for the 
ARC.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $23,203,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      29,130,000
House allowance.........................................      29,130,000
Committee recommendation................................      29,130,000

    The Committee recommends $29,130,000, for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Committee carries a 
provision requiring the Board to enter into an agreement with 
an inspector general office from another agency for such 
services.

                        Delta Regional Authority

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $11,677,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      13,000,000
House allowance.........................................      11,700,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,925,000

    For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends 
$9,925,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to 
assist the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining 
basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and 
opportunities for economic development.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2011....................................     -$4,321,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      11,965,000
House allowance.........................................      10,700,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,077,000

    The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership 
responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job 
training, and other economic development services in rural 
areas throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 2012, the Committee 
recommends $9,077,000.

                  Northern Border Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2011....................................      $1,497,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       1,500,000
House allowance.........................................       1,350,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,275,000

    The Committee recommends $1,275,000 for the Northern Border 
Regional Commission.

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2011....................................        $250,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
House allowance.........................................         250,000
Committee recommendation................................         212,500

    The Committee recommends $212,500 for the Southeast 
Crescent Regional Commission.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011....................................  $1,043,208,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................   1,027,240,000
House allowance.........................................   1,037,240,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,027,240,000

                                REVENUES

Appropriations, 2011....................................   -$906,220,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................    -899,726,000
House allowance.........................................    -890,713,000
Committee recommendation................................    -899,726,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................    $136,988,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................     127,514,000
House allowance.........................................     146,527,000
Committee recommendation................................     127,514,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for fiscal year 2012 is $1,027,240,000. This amount 
is offset by estimated revenues of $899,726,000 resulting in a 
net appropriation of $127,514,000.
    National Academy of Sciences Study.--At the recommendation 
of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, the 
Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to contract 
with the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] for a study of the 
lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The study 
should assess:
  --the causes of the crisis at Fukushima;
  --the lessons that can be learned;
  --the lessons' implications for conclusions reached in 
        earlier NAS studies on the safety and security of 
        current storage arrangements for spent nuclear fuel and 
        high-level waste in the United States, including an 
        assessment of whether the amount of spent fuel 
        currently stored in reactor pools should be reduced;
  --the lessons' implications for commercial nuclear reactor 
        safety and security regulations; and
  --the potential to improve design basis threats assessment.
    This study shall build upon the 2004 NAS study of storage 
issues and complement the other efforts to learn from Fukushima 
that have already been launched by the NRC and industry. The 
Committee directs the Commission to proceed with its own 
efforts to improve regulations as expeditiously as possible. 
From the funds made available to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, the Committee directs the Commission to transfer 
$2,000,000 to the National Academy of Sciences to undertake 
this study. The Committee expects the Commission to execute 
this transfer within 30 days of enactment of this act. The 
study should be conducted in coordination with the Department 
of Energy and, if possible, the Japanese Government. The 
Committee expects the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
Department of Energy, and the Department of State to assist the 
National Academy of Sciences in obtaining the information it 
needs to complete this study in a timely manner.
    Beyond Design-basis Events.--In light of recent earthquakes 
that exceeded the design basis of nuclear power plants in both 
Japan and the United States, the Committee encourages the 
Commission to evaluate whether it would be appropriate for the 
Commission to oversee, evaluate and test licensee beyond-
design-basis event management guidelines and mitigation 
strategies in a more comprehensive manner, especially with 
regard to seismic and flooding events.
    Mitigating the Impact of Earthquakes.--The Committee is 
concerned that risks to public health and safety exist due to a 
lack of understanding how critical nuclear energy 
infrastructure, particularly storage ponds and containers for 
spent nuclear fuel and waste, will respond to a catastrophic 
earthquake or kinetic impact event. The Committee directs the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] to develop protocols for 
the use of existing domestic seismic testing facilities, 
including the National Science Foundation's National Earthquake 
Engineering Simulation [NEES] program, to conduct tests on 
full-scale specimens of critical nuclear infrastructure, in 
order to validate related computer models and inform subsequent 
mitigation strategies. The NRC shall collaborate with NEES to 
submit a related plan and proposed budget to the Committee by 
January 23, 2012.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $10,858,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      10,860,000
House allowance.........................................      10,860,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,860,000

                                REVENUES

Appropriations, 2011....................................     -$9,774,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      -9,774,000
House allowance.........................................      -9,774,000
Committee recommendation................................      -9,774,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................      $1,084,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       1,086,000
House allowance.........................................       1,086,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,086,000

    The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $1,086,000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2011....................................      $3,883,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       3,400,000
House allowance.........................................       3,400,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,400,000

    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to 
evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board reports its findings no fewer than two times a year to 
Congress and to the Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2012, 
the Committee recommends $3,400,000.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects

Appropriation, 2011.....................................      $4,457,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................       4,032,000
House allowance.........................................       4,032,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

    The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural 
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent 
agency in the executive branch on December 13, 2006. The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000. The Committee notes that only 
one joint venture is still pursuing the design and construction 
of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48. This 
joint venture continues with extensive financial support from 
the State of Alaska. The Committee further notes that the 
Office of the Federal Coordinator is legally allowed to receive 
funding from the companies for its work. The Committee urges 
the agency to take greater advantage of this potential funding 
source as the work of the agency directly benefits the 
companies.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Section 401. The Committee carries a provision related to 
spent nuclear fuel.
    Section 402. The Committee carries a provision related to 
design basis.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The following list of general provisions are recommended by 
the Committee.
    Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds 
provided in this bill from being used to influence 
congressional action.
    Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority 
under this act.

                     Program, Project and Activity

    In fiscal year 2012, for purposes of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), 
as amended, the following information provides the definition 
of the term ``program, project of activity'' for departments 
and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriation bill. The term ``program, project or 
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Bill, 2012 and the report accompanying the bill.
    If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the 
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any 
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2012 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 to all item specified in 
the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations in support of the fiscal year 2012 budget 
estimates as modified by congressional action.

                                TITLE VI

           EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

    Natural disasters have impacted a large part of the Nation 
this year. The Committee recognizes that some of these 
disasters are on-going such as the flood on the Missouri River 
as well as the flooding and devastation caused by Hurricane 
Irene in late August and early September. The Corps of 
Engineers has dutifully attempted to provide the Committee with 
information concerning damaged Federal flood control, storm 
damage, navigation and other infrastructure associated with 
these Federal projects as waters recede and the damages can be 
assessed. The funding provided under this title represents the 
verifiable damages provided by the Corps. The Committee 
recognizes that as the waters recede and additional damage 
assessments are made, that funding needs will increase. Those 
needs as they become known and verifiable will be addressed by 
the Committee at a later date. These funds are not earmarked 
and the Corps should utilize them for the highest priority 
disaster needs.

                   MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

    The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has suffered 
a record flood event, in many cases surpassing the 1927 and 
1937 floods. For only the second time ever and the first time 
since 1937, the Corps has had to operate the Birds Point-New 
Madrid Floodway. Because of the rarity of the use of this 
floodway, there is no structure to open or close. The Corps had 
to literally blow up sections of the levee in order to keep 
from overtopping levees on the Mississippi River. This floodway 
was designed as one of four floodways to help pass the project 
design flood on the Mississippi River. Floodways at Morganza 
and Bonnet Carre in Louisiana were operated as well to ensure 
that levees were not overtopped in this reach of the river.
    While these structures operated as planned, repairs will be 
necessary. The Birds Point-New Madrid levee has to be rebuilt 
as well as damages to the structures at Morganza and Bonnet 
Carre due to high flows and scouring. Numerous navigation 
structures that provide reliable navigation widths and depths 
on the Mississippi River were damaged by these unprecedented 
flows. Seepage under and through levees caused damages to the 
levees. Bank protection measures were impacted as well as 
tremendous amounts of silt deposited in navigable harbors. 
Recreation facilities were, in some cases, obliterated by the 
torrent of water that inexorably raged downstream.
    All of these damages must be repaired if the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries project is to provide similar protection 
for future events. The Committee has included $890,177,300 to 
allow the Corps to address these repairs. Lessons learned from 
prior disasters should be put to use in making these repairs as 
expeditiously as possible. The Committee has also included 
language directing a report of the allocation and obligation of 
these funds within 60 days of enactment of this act.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

    Projects that are part of the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries project were not the only items damaged by flood 
events. The flood on the Mississippi River moved tremendous 
amounts of sediment downstream clogging harbors and navigation 
channels. This sediment will have to be removed to restore the 
authorized widths and depths to these projects. Corps 
infrastructure has been damaged by high flows and scouring. 
Repairs to these facilities will have to be made if they are to 
provide similar functions in the future. The Committee has 
included $88,003,700 to allow the Corps to address these 
repairs. Lessons learned from prior disasters should be put to 
use in making these repairs as expeditiously as possible. The 
Committee has also included language directing a report of the 
allocation and obligation of these funds within 60 days of 
enactment of this act.

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

    The Corps participated in many flood fights alongside 
numerous local and State agencies. Most of these were 
successful. However, on the Missouri River, a few levees have 
failed that protect primarily agricultural lands. These levees 
will have to be rebuilt. Damages to levees and structures that 
are part of the Federal levee system that experienced damages 
due to seepage and erosion will have to be repaired if these 
levees are to reliably protect the areas from the next high 
water event. The Corps must take actions necessary to ensure 
that they are prepared for the inevitable natural disasters of 
the future. The Committee has included $66,387,000 for the 
Corps to address these repairs and for other activities related 
to responding and preparing for natural disasters. Lessons 
learned from prior disasters should be put to use in making 
these repairs as expeditiously as possible. The Committee has 
also included language directing a report of the allocation and 
obligation of these funds within 60 days of enactment of this 
act.

  COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal 
year 2012:
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: General Investigations; 
Construction, General; Mississippi River and Tributaries; 
Operations and Maintenance; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 
Action Program;
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation;
    Water and Related Resources;
    Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply 
Activities:
    Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D;, Clean Coal, 
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
    Health, Safety and Security;
    Non-Defense Environmental Management;
    Office of Science;
    Department of Administration;
    National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons 
Activities; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; 
Office of the Administrator;
    Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion;
    Other Defense Activities;
    Defense Nuclear Waste Fund;
    Office of Security and Performance Assurance;
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
    Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern, 
Southwestern, Western Area; and
    Energy Information Administration.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 7, 
2011, the Committee ordered favorably reported en bloc the 
fiscal year 2012 budget allocation a proposed by the Chairman, 
and a bill (H.R. 2112) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2012, and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute; a bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for 
energy and water development and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; and a bill 
(H.R 2017) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for 
other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute; provided, that each bill be subject to further 
amendment and that each bill be consistent with its spending 
allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-1, a quorum being 
present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Inouye                     Mr. Johnson (WI)
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson (SD)
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Brown
Mr. Cochran
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Kirk
Mr. Coats
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven

 COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports 
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute 
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or 
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a 
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution 
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof 
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and 
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the 
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by 
the Committee.''
    In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law 
proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing 
law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 
printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman.

                         TITLE 16--CONSERVATION


Chapter 12H--Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation


Sec. 839B. REGIONAL PLANNING AND PARTICIPATION

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(h) Fish and wildlife

            (1)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (10)(A) * * *
            (B) The Administrator may make expenditures from 
        such fund which shall be included in the annual or 
        supplementary budgets submitted to the Congress 
        pursuant to the Federal Columbia River Transmission 
        System Act [16 U.S.C. 838 et seq.]. Any amounts 
        included in such budget for the construction of capital 
        facilities with an estimated life of greater than 15 
        years and an estimated cost of at least [$1,000,000] 
        $5,000,000 shall be funded in the same manner and in 
        accordance with the same procedures as major 
        transmission facilities under the Federal Columbia 
        River Transmission System Act.
                                ------                                


                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE


            Chapter 149--National Energy Policy and Programs


         Subchapter XV--Incentives for Innovative Technologies


Sec. 16512. Terms and conditions

(a) In general

        Except for division C of Public Law 108-324 [15 U.S.C. 
        720 et seq.], the Secretary shall make guarantees under 
        this or any other Act for projects on such terms and 
        conditions as the Secretary determines, after 
        consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, only 
        in accordance with this section.

[(b) Specific appropriation or contribution

        [No guarantee shall be made unless--
                [(1) an appropriation for the cost has been 
                made; or
                [(2) the Secretary has received from the 
                borrower a payment in full for the cost of the 
                obligation and deposited the payment into the 
                Treasury.]
    [(b) Specific Appropriation or Contribution.--
            [(1) In general.--
                    [(A) an appropriation for the cost of the 
                guarantee has been made;
                    [(B) the Secretary has received from the 
                borrower a payment in full for the cost of the 
                guarantee and deposited the payment into the 
                Treasury; or
                    [(C) a combination of one or more 
                appropriations under subparagraph (A) and one 
                or more payments from the borrower under 
                subparagraph (B) has been made that is 
                sufficient to cover the cost of the guarantee.]
    (b) Specific appropriation or contribution.--
            (1) In general.--No guarantee shall be made 
        unless.--
                    (A) an appropriation for the cost of the 
                guarantee has been made;
                    (B) the Secretary has received from the 
                borrower a payment in full for the cost of the 
                guarantee and deposited the payment into the 
                Treasury;
                    (C) a combination of one or more 
                appropriations under subparagraph (A) and one 
                or more payments from the borrower under 
                subparagraph (B) has been made that is 
                sufficient to cover the cost of the guarantee.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                ------                                


       WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-303


                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

SEC. 333. PASSAIC RIVER, NEW JERSEY.

    Section 1148 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(100 Stat. 4254) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1148. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN.

    ``(a) Acquisition of Lands.--The Secretary may acquire from 
willing sellers lands on which residential structures are 
located and that are subject to frequent and recurring flood 
damage, as identified in the supplemental floodway report of 
the Corps of Engineers, Passaic River Buyout Study, September 
1995, at an estimated total cost of $194,000,000.
    ``[(b) Retention of Lands for Flood Protection.--Lands 
acquired by the Secretary under this section shall be retained 
by the Secretary for future use in conjunction with flood 
protection and flood management in the Passaic River Basin.]
    (b) Disposition of Acquired Land.--The Secretary may 
transfer land acquired under this section to the non-Federal 
sponsor by quitclaim deed subject to such terms and conditions 
as the Secretary determines to be in the public interest.
    ``(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
carrying out this section shall be 25 percent plus any amount 
that might result from application of subsection (d).
    ``(d) Applicability of Benefit-Cost Ratio Waiver 
Authority.--In evaluating and implementing the project under 
this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal 
interest to participate in the financing of the project in 
accordance with section 903(c), to the extent that the 
Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is 
necessary to implement the project.''.
    (e) Funds for Land Acquisition.--Funds for acquiring such 
lands as are necessary in carrying out the requirements of this 
section and requirements as further recommended by the 
Secretary shall include funds as provided in subsection (c) and 
(d) of this section herein and also funds as previously 
appropriated with any and all such funds to be held by the 
Secretary for use in acquiring the requisite lands in 
proportion to the project cost sharing percentages.
                                ------                                


            WATER DESALINATION ACT, 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-298


SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) Section 3.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out section 3 of this Act $5,000,000 per year for fiscal 
years 1997 through [2011] 2016. Of these amounts, up to 
$1,000,000 in each fiscal year may be awarded to institutions 
of higher education, including United States-Mexico binational 
research foundations and interuniversity research programs 
established by the two countries, for research grants without 
any cost-sharing requirement.
    (b) Section 4.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out section 4 of this Act [$25,000,000 for fiscal years 
1997 through 2011] $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 
through 2016.
                                ------                                


       WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000, PUBLIC LAW 106-541


                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 529. LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.

    (a) Definitions.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) Participation in Project.-- * * *
            (1) In general.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated [$20,000,000] $30,000,000 
        to carry out this section.
                                ------                                


    FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT, 2002, PUBLIC LAW 107-171


                         TITLE II--CONSERVATION

                Subtitle F--Other Conservation Programs

SEC. 2507. DESERT TERMINAL LAKES.

    (a) Transfer.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) Permitted Uses.--[In any case in which there are 
willing sellers] For the benefit of at-risk natural desert 
terminal lakes and associated riparian and watershed resources, 
in any case in which there are willing sellers or willing 
participants, the funds described in subsection (a) may be 
used--
            (1) to lease water;
            (2) to purchase land, water appurtenant to the 
        land, and related interests [in the Walker River Basin 
        in accordance with section 208(a)(1)(A) of the Energy 
        and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public 
        Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 2268)]; and
            (3) for efforts consistent with researching, 
        supporting, andconserving fish, wildlife, plant, and 
        habitat resources [in the Walker River Basin].
                                ------                                


      OMNIBUS PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT, 2009, PUBLIC LAW 111-11


                       TITLE X--WATER SETTLEMENTS

          Subtitle A--San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement

          PART I--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ACT

SEC. 10009. APPROPRIATIONS; SETTLEMENT FUND.

    (a) Implementation Costs.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Fund.--
            (1) In General.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (2) Availability.--All funds deposited into the 
        Fund pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of 
        paragraph (1) are authorized for appropriation to 
        implement the Settlement and this part, in addition to 
        the authorization provided in subsections (a) and (b) 
        of section 10203, except that $88,000,000 of such funds 
        are available for expenditure without further 
        appropriation; provided that after [October 1, 2019, 
        all funds in the Fund shall be available for 
        expenditure without further appropriation.] October 1, 
        2014, all funds in the Fund shall be available for 
        expenditure on an annual basis in an amount not to 
        exceed $40,000,000 without further appropriation.
                                ------                                


ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, 2010, 
                           PUBLIC LAW 111-85


                                TITLE II


                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


             General Provisions--Department of the Interior

    Sec. 208. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b)(1) The amount made available under subsection (a)(1) 
shall be--
            (A) * * *
            (B) allocated as follows:
                    (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (iv) $10,000,000 for associated 
                conservation and stewardship activities, 
                including water conservation and management, 
                watershed planning, land stewardship, habitat 
                restoration, and the establishment of a local, 
                nonprofit entity to hold and [exercise water 
                rights] manage land, water appurtenat to the 
                land, and related interests acquired by, and to 
                achieve the purposes of, the Walker Basin 
                Restoration Program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (2)(A) [The amount made available under subsection 
        (a)(1) shall be provided to the National Fish and 
        Wildlife Foundation] Any amount made available to the 
        National Fish and Wildlife Foundation under subsection 
        (a) shall be provided--

                        BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL


  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
 for 2012: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
    Mandatory...............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Discretionary...........................................       31,625       32,670       45,071    \1\45,838
        Security............................................       11,050       11,050           NA           NA
        Nonsecurity.........................................       20,575       21,620           NA           NA
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2012....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........    \2\19,500
    2013....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        9,315
    2014....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,038
    2015....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          580
    2016 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          181
Financial assistance to State and local governments for                NA           71           NA           15
 2012.......................................................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill for disaster funding and in accordance with section
  251(b)(2)(D) of the BBEDCA and section 106 of the Deficit Control Act of 2011, the Committee anticipates that
  the Budget Committee will file a revised section 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations
  reflecting an upward adjustment of $1,045,000,000 in budget authority plus associated outlays.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2012
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+
                                                                                                                             or -)
               Item                      2011       Budget estimate  House allowance     Committee    --------------------------------------------------
                                    appropriation                                      recommendation        2012
                                                                                                        appropriation   Budget estimate  House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--

      DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

    Corps of Engineers--Civil

Investigations...................         126,746          104,000          104,000          125,000           -1,746          +21,000          +21,000
Construction.....................       1,789,822        1,480,000        1,615,191        1,610,000         -179,822         +130,000           -5,191
    Rescission...................        -176,000   ...............         -50,000   ...............        +176,000   ...............         +50,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................       1,613,822        1,480,000        1,565,191        1,610,000           -3,822         +130,000          +44,809

Mississippi River and tributaries         263,906          210,000          210,000          250,000          -13,906          +40,000          +40,000
    Rescission...................         -22,000          -23,000   ...............  ...............         +22,000          +23,000   ...............
    Rescission of emergency        ...............         -35,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +35,000   ...............
     funding (Sec. 105)..........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         241,906          152,000          210,000          250,000           +8,094          +98,000          +40,000

Operations and maintenance.......       2,365,759        2,314,000        2,368,925        2,360,000           -5,759          +46,000           -8,925
Regulatory program...............         189,620          196,000          196,000          193,000           +3,380           -3,000           -3,000
FUSRAP...........................         129,740          109,000          109,000          109,000          -20,740   ...............  ...............
Flood control and coastal          ...............          27,000           27,000           27,000          +27,000   ...............  ...............
 emergencies.....................
Expenses.........................         184,630          185,000          177,640          185,000             +370   ...............          +7,360
Office of Assistant Secretary of            4,990            6,000            5,000            5,000              +10           -1,000   ...............
 the Army (Civil Works)..........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department        4,857,213        4,573,000        4,762,756        4,864,000           +6,787         +291,000         +101,244
       of Defense--Civil.........
          Appropriations.........      (5,055,213)      (4,631,000)      (4,812,756)      (4,864,000)       (-191,213)       (+233,000)        (+51,244)
          Rescissions............       (-198,000)        (-23,000)        (-50,000)  ...............       (+198,000)        (+23,000)        (+50,000)
          Rescissions of           ...............        (-35,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (+35,000)  ...............
           emergency funding.....
                                  ======================================================================================================================
   TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE
             INTERIOR

 Central Utah Project Completion
             Account

Central Utah project construction  ...............          29,441           25,154           25,441          +25,441           -4,000             +287
Fish, wildlife, and recreation     ...............           2,000            2,000            2,000           +2,000   ...............  ...............
 mitigation and conservation.....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................  ...............          31,441           27,154           27,441          +27,441           -4,000             +287

Program oversight and              ...............           1,550            1,550            1,550           +1,550   ...............  ...............
 administration..................
Undistributed funding level......          31,940   ...............  ...............  ...............         -31,940   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Central Utah project          31,940           32,991           28,704           28,991           -2,949           -4,000             +287
       completion account........

      Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources......         911,673          805,187          822,300          885,670          -26,003          +80,483          +63,370
Central Valley project                     49,914           53,068           53,068           53,068           +3,154   ...............  ...............
 restoration fund................
California Bay-Delta restoration.          39,920           39,651           35,928           39,651             -269   ...............          +3,723
Policy and administration........          61,078           60,000           60,000           60,000           -1,078   ...............  ...............
Indian water rights settlements..  ...............          51,483   ...............  ...............  ...............         -51,483   ...............
San Joaquin restoration fund.....  ...............           9,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -9,000   ...............
    Rescission...................  ...............  ...............         -66,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +66,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................  ...............           9,000          -66,000   ...............  ...............          -9,000          +66,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Bureau of                  1,062,585        1,018,389          905,296        1,038,389          -24,196          +20,000         +133,093
       Reclamation...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department       1,094,525        1,051,380          934,000        1,067,380          -27,145          +16,000         +133,380
       of the Interior...........
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

         Energy Programs

Energy efficiency and renewable         1,825,641        3,200,053        1,308,436        1,795,641          -30,000       -1,404,412         +487,205
 energy..........................
    Rescission...................         -30,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +30,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................       1,795,641        3,200,053        1,308,436        1,795,641   ...............      -1,404,412         +487,205

Electricity delivery and energy           144,710          237,717          139,496          141,010           -3,700          -96,707           +1,514
 reliability.....................
    Rescission...................          -3,700   ...............  ...............  ...............          +3,700   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         141,010          237,717          139,496          141,010   ...............         -96,707           +1,514

Nuclear energy...................         732,124          754,028          733,633          583,834         -148,290         -170,194         -149,799
    Rescission...................          -6,300   ...............  ...............  ...............          +6,300   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         725,824          754,028          733,633          583,834         -141,990         -170,194         -149,799

Fossil energy research and                584,529          452,975          476,993          445,471         -139,058           -7,504          -31,522
 development.....................
    Rescission...................        -140,000   ...............  ...............        -187,000          -47,000         -187,000         -187,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         444,529          452,975          476,993          258,471         -186,058         -194,504         -218,522

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale              22,954           14,909           14,909           14,909           -8,045   ...............  ...............
 Reserves........................
    Rescission...................          -2,100   ...............  ...............  ...............          +2,100   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................          20,854           14,909           14,909           14,909           -5,945   ...............  ...............

Strategic petroleum reserve......         209,441          192,704          192,704          192,704          -16,737   ...............  ...............
    Rescission...................         -86,300          -71,000   ...............  ...............         +86,300          +71,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         123,141          121,704          192,704          192,704          +69,563          +71,000   ...............

SPR petroleum account............  ...............        -250,000         -500,000         -500,000         -500,000         -250,000   ...............
Clean coal technology                     -16,500   ...............  ...............  ...............         +16,500   ...............  ...............
 (rescission)....................

Northeast home heating oil                 10,978           10,119           10,119           10,119             -859   ...............  ...............
 reserve.........................
    Rescission...................  ...............        -100,000         -100,000         -100,000         -100,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................          10,978          -89,881          -89,881          -89,881         -100,859   ...............  ...............

Energy Information Administration          95,409          123,957          105,000          105,000           +9,591          -18,957   ...............
    Rescission...................            -400   ...............  ...............  ...............            +400   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................          95,009          123,957          105,000          105,000           +9,991          -18,957   ...............

Non-defense environmental clean           224,350          219,121          254,121          219,121           -5,229   ...............         -35,000
 up..............................
    Rescission...................            -900   ...............  ...............  ...............            +900   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         223,450          219,121          254,121          219,121           -4,329   ...............         -35,000

Uranium enrichment                        506,984          504,169          449,000          429,000          -77,984          -75,169          -20,000
 decontamination and
 decommissioning fund............
    Rescission...................          -9,900   ...............  ...............  ...............          +9,900   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         497,084          504,169          449,000          429,000          -68,084          -75,169          -20,000

Science..........................       4,857,665        5,416,114        4,800,000        4,842,665          -15,000         -573,449          +42,665
    Rescission...................         -15,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +15,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................       4,842,665        5,416,114        4,800,000        4,842,665   ...............        -573,449          +42,665

Nuclear Waste Disposal...........  ...............  ...............          25,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -25,000
    Rescission...................          -2,800   ...............  ...............  ...............          +2,800   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................          -2,800   ...............          25,000   ...............          +2,800   ...............         -25,000

Advanced Research Projects Agency-        179,640          550,011          179,640          250,000          +70,360         -300,011          +70,360
 Energy..........................

Innovative Technology Loan                 58,000           38,000           38,000           38,000          -20,000   ...............  ...............
 Guarantee Program...............
    Offsetting collection........         -58,000          -38,000          -38,000          -38,000          +20,000   ...............  ...............
    Loan volume rescission.......        -181,830   ...............  ...............  ...............        +181,830   ...............  ...............
    Additional loan volume.......          11,830          360,000   ...............  ...............         -11,830         -360,000   ...............
    Federal participation in       ...............         500,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -500,000   ...............
     Title 17 loan guarantee
     projects....................
    Additional subsidy cost......         169,660          200,000          160,000          200,000          +30,340   ...............         +40,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................            -340        1,060,000          160,000          200,000         +200,340         -860,000          +40,000

Advanced technology vehicles                9,978            6,000            6,000            6,000           -3,978   ...............  ...............
 manufacturing loans program.....

Better buildings pilot loan
 guarantee initiative:
    Loan guarantees..............  ...............         100,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -100,000   ...............
    Administrative costs.........  ...............           5,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................  ...............         105,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        -105,000   ...............

Departmental administration......         250,139          240,623           63,374          237,623          -12,516           -3,000         +174,249
    Miscellaneous revenues.......        -119,501         -111,883         -111,883         -111,883           +7,618   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation..........         130,638          128,740          -48,509          125,740           -4,898           -3,000         +174,249

    Rescission...................         -81,900   ...............  ...............  ...............         +81,900   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................          48,738          128,740          -48,509          125,740          +77,002           -3,000         +174,249

Office of the Inspector General..          42,764           41,774           41,774           41,774             -990   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Energy programs.....       9,181,665       12,596,391        8,248,316        8,615,988         -565,677       -3,980,403         +367,672

 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

    National Nuclear Security
          Administration

Weapons activities...............       6,946,398        7,629,716        7,131,993        7,190,000         +243,602         -439,716          +58,007
    Rescission...................         -50,000          -40,332          -40,332   ...............         +50,000          +40,332          +40,332
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................       6,896,398        7,589,384        7,091,661        7,190,000         +293,602         -399,384          +98,339

Defense nuclear nonproliferation.       2,318,653        2,549,492        2,121,770        2,404,300          +85,647         -145,192         +282,530
    Rescission...................         -45,000          -30,000          -30,000          -21,000          +24,000           +9,000           +9,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................       2,273,653        2,519,492        2,091,770        2,383,300         +109,647         -136,192         +291,530

Naval reactors...................         960,176        1,153,662        1,030,600        1,100,000         +139,824          -53,662          +69,400
    Rescission...................          -1,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          +1,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         959,176        1,153,662        1,030,600        1,100,000         +140,824          -53,662          +69,400

Office of the Administrator......         398,993          450,060          400,000          404,000           +5,007          -46,060           +4,000
    Rescission...................          -5,700   ...............  ...............  ...............          +5,700   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         393,293          450,060          400,000          404,000          +10,707          -46,060           +4,000

        General Provision

Section 309--Contractor pay
 freeze:
    Security (rescission)........  ...............  ...............  ...............         -27,300          -27,300          -27,300          -27,300
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Nuclear          10,522,520       11,712,598       10,614,031       11,050,000         +527,480         -662,598         +435,969
       Security Administration...

 Environmental and Other Defense
            Activities

Defense environmental cleanup....       4,991,638        5,406,781        4,937,619        5,002,308          +10,670         -404,473          +64,689
    (Transfer to Uranium                 (-33,633)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (+33,633)  ...............  ...............
     enrichment decontamination
     and decommissioning fund)...
    Rescission...................         -11,900   ...............  ...............  ...............         +11,900   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................       4,979,738        5,406,781        4,937,619        5,002,308          +22,570         -404,473          +64,689

Other defense activities.........         788,420          859,952          814,000          819,000          +30,580          -40,952           +5,000
    Rescission...................          -3,400   ...............  ...............  ...............          +3,400   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         785,020          859,952          814,000          819,000          +33,980          -40,952           +5,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Environmental and          5,764,758        6,266,733        5,751,619        5,821,308          +56,550         -445,425          +69,689
       other defense activities..
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy             16,287,278       17,979,331       16,365,650       16,871,308         +584,030       -1,108,023         +505,658
       Defense Activities........

         Power Marketing
        Administrations\1\

Operation and maintenance,                 78,444            8,428            8,428            8,428          -70,016   ...............  ...............
 Southeastern Power
 Administration..................
    Offsetting collections.......         -78,444           -8,428           -8,428           -8,428          +70,016   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............

Operation and maintenance,                 82,918           45,010           45,010           45,010          -37,908   ...............  ...............
 Southwestern Power
 Administration..................
    Offsetting collection........         -69,868          -33,118          -33,118          -33,118          +36,750   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................          13,050           11,892           11,892           11,892           -1,158   ...............  ...............

Construction, rehabilitation,             610,179          285,900          285,900          285,900         -324,279   ...............  ...............
 operation and maintenance,
 Western Area Power
 Administration..................
    Offsetting collections.......        -497,337         -189,932         -189,932         -189,932         +307,405   ...............  ...............
    Offsetting collection                  -3,879   ...............  ...............  ...............          +3,879   ...............  ...............
     Colorado River Dam Fund.....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         108,963           95,968           95,968           95,968          -12,995   ...............  ...............

Falcon and Amistad operating and            2,568            4,169            4,169            4,169           +1,601   ...............  ...............
 maintenance fund................
    Offsetting collections.......          -2,348           -3,949           -3,949           -3,949           -1,601   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................             220              220              220              220   ...............  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing              122,233          108,080          108,080          108,080          -14,153   ...............  ...............
       Administrations...........

    Federal Energy Regulatory
            Commission

Salaries and expenses............         298,000          304,600          304,600          304,600           +6,600   ...............  ...............
Revenues applied.................        -298,000         -304,600         -304,600         -304,600           -6,600   ...............  ...............

        General Provision

Section 309--Contractor pay
 freeze:
    Non security (rescission)....  ...............  ...............  ...............         -46,400          -46,400          -46,400          -46,400
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title III,                25,591,176       30,683,802       24,722,046       25,548,976          -42,200       -5,134,826         +826,930
       Department of Energy......
          Appropriations.........     (26,285,806)     (30,925,134)     (24,892,378)     (25,930,676)       (-355,130)     (-4,994,458)     (+1,038,298)
          Rescissions............       (-694,630)       (-241,332)       (-170,332)       (-381,700)       (+312,930)       (-140,368)       (-211,368)
                                  ======================================================================================================================
  TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission..          68,263           76,000           68,400           58,024          -10,239          -17,976          -10,376
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety          23,203           29,130           29,130           29,130           +5,927   ...............  ...............
 Board...........................
Delta Regional Authority.........          11,677           13,000           11,700            9,925           -1,752           -3,075           -1,775

Denali Commission................          10,679           11,965           10,700            9,077           -1,602           -2,888           -1,623
    Rescission...................         -15,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +15,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................          -4,321           11,965           10,700            9,077          +13,398           -2,888           -1,623

Northern Border Regional                    1,497            1,500            1,350            1,275             -222             -225              -75
 Commission......................
Southeast Crescent Regional                   250   ...............             250              213              -37             +213              -37
 Commission......................

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
    Salaries and expenses........       1,043,208        1,027,240        1,037,240        1,027,240          -15,968   ...............         -10,000
    Revenues.....................        -906,220         -899,726         -890,713         -899,726           +6,494   ...............          -9,013
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................         136,988          127,514          146,527          127,514           -9,474   ...............         -19,013

    Office of Inspector General..          10,858           10,860           10,860           10,860               +2   ...............  ...............
    Revenues.....................          -9,774           -9,774           -9,774           -9,774   ...............  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................           1,084            1,086            1,086            1,086               +2   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear Regulatory           138,072          128,600          147,613          128,600           -9,472   ...............         -19,013
       Commission................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review              3,883            3,400            3,400            3,400             -483   ...............  ...............
 Board...........................
Office of the Federal Coordinator           4,457            4,032            4,032            1,000           -3,457           -3,032           -3,032
 for Alaska natural gas
 transportation proj-  ects......
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title IV,                    246,981          267,627          276,575          240,644           -6,337          -26,983          -35,931
       Independent agencies......
          Appropriations.........        (261,981)        (267,627)        (276,575)        (240,644)        (-21,337)        (-26,983)        (-35,931)
          Rescissions............        (-15,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (+15,000)  ...............  ...............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
 TITLE V--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
           FUNDING FOR

         DISASTER RELIEF

Corps of Engineers--Civil:
    Construction, fiscal year      ...............  ...............             376   ...............  ...............  ...............            -376
     2011 (emergency)............
    Mississippi River and          ...............  ...............         589,505   ...............  ...............  ...............        -589,505
     tributaries, fiscal year
     2011 (emergency)............
    Operation and maintenance,     ...............  ...............         204,927   ...............  ...............  ...............        -204,927
     fiscal year 2011 (emergency)
    Flood control and coastal      ...............  ...............         233,876   ...............  ...............  ...............        -233,876
     emergencies, fiscal year
     2011 (emergency)............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Corp of            ...............  ...............       1,028,684   ...............  ...............  ...............      -1,028,684
       Engineers--Civil..........

Transfer from title XII, Public    ...............  ...............      -1,028,684   ...............  ...............  ...............      +1,028,684
 Law 111-5 (emergency)...........
Rescission of emergency            ...............  ...............        -471,316   ...............  ...............  ...............        +471,316
 appropriations (Public Law 111-
 5)..............................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, Title V, Emergency    ...............  ...............        -471,316   ...............  ...............  ...............        +471,316
       supplemental for disaster
       relief....................
          Emergency                ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
           appropriations........
          Rescissions of           ...............  ...............       (-471,316)  ...............  ...............  ...............       (+471,316)
           emergency
           appropriations........

 TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
         DISASTER RELIEF

   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

      DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

    Corps of Engineers--Civil

Mississippi River and tributaries  ...............  ...............  ...............         890,177         +890,177         +890,177         +890,177
 (disaster relief category)......
Operations and maintenance         ...............  ...............  ...............          88,004          +88,004          +88,004          +88,004
 (disaster relief category)......
Flood control and coastal          ...............  ...............  ...............          66,387          +66,387          +66,387          +66,387
 emergencies (disaster relief
 category).......................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, Title VI, Emergency   ...............  ...............  ...............       1,044,568       +1,044,568       +1,044,568       +1,044,568
       supplemental for disaster
       relief....................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Grand total................      31,789,895       36,575,809       30,224,061       32,765,568         +975,673       -3,810,241       +2,541,507
          Appropriations.........     (32,697,525)     (36,875,141)     (30,981,709)     (32,102,700)       (-594,825)     (-4,772,441)     (+1,120,991)
          Disaster relief          ...............  ...............  ...............      (1,044,568)     (+1,044,568)     (+1,044,568)     (+1,044,568)
           category..............
          Rescissions............       (-907,630)       (-264,332)       (-286,332)       (-381,700)       (+525,930)       (-117,368)        (-95,368)
          Rescissions of           ...............        (-35,000)       (-471,316)  ...............  ...............        (+35,000)       (+471,316)
           emergency
           appropriations........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting
  collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase wheeling.