Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

113th Congress                                                  Report
                 {    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES     }
 2d Session      {                                 }           113-486

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

 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2015

                                _______
                                

 June 20, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Mr. Simpson, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4923]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page Number

                                                            Bill Report
Introduction...............................................    --
                                                                      5
I. Department of Defense--Civil:                               --
                                                                     14
        Corps of Engineers--Civil..........................     2
                                                                     14
                Investigations.............................     2
                                                                     25
                Construction...............................     3
                                                                     36
                Mississippi River and Tributaries..........     4
                                                                     43
                Operation and Maintenance..................     4
                                                                     46
                Regulatory Program.........................     6
                                                                     70
                Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
                    Program................................     6
                                                                     71
                Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies......     6
                                                                     72
                Expenses...................................     6
                                                                     72
                Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
                    Army (Civil Works).....................     7
                                                                     73
        General Provisions.................................     8
                                                                     74
II. Department of the Interior:                                11
                                                                     74
        Central Utah Project...............................    11
                                                                     74
                Central Utah Project Completion Account....    11
                                                                     74
        Bureau of Reclamation:                                 --
                                                                     75
                Water and Related Resources................    12
                                                                     77
                Central Valley Project Restoration Fund....    13
                                                                     86
                California Bay-Delta Restoration...........    14
                                                                     86
                Policy and Administration..................    14
                                                                     87
                Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account.    15
                                                                     88
                Administrative Provision...................    15
                                                                     88
        General Provisions.................................    15
                                                                     88
III. Department of Energy:                                     20
                                                                     89
        Introduction.......................................    --
                                                                     89
        Committee Recommendations..........................    --
                                                                     89
        Energy Programs:                                       20
                                                                     94
                Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.....    20
                                                                     94
                Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability    20
                                                                    102
                Nuclear Energy.............................    21
                                                                    104
                Fossil Energy Research and Development.....    21
                                                                    107
                Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.....    22
                                                                    112
                Elk Hills School Lands Fund................    22
                                                                    112
                Strategic Petroleum Reserve................    22
                                                                    113
                Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.........    23
                                                                    115
                Energy Information Administration..........    23
                                                                    115
                Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup..........    23
                                                                    115
                Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
                    Decommissioning Fund...................    24
                                                                    116
                Science....................................    24
                                                                    117
                Nuclear Waste Disposal.....................    25
                                                                    124
                Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy..    25
                                                                    124
                Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan 
                    Guarantee Program......................    26
                                                                    125
                Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing 
                    Loan Program...........................    27
                                                                    125
                Clean Coal Technology......................    27
                                                                    126
                Departmental Administration................    27
                                                                    126
                Office of the Inspector General............    28
                                                                    127
        Atomic Energy Defense Activities:                      29
                                                                    128
        National Nuclear Security Administration:              29
                                                                    128
                Weapons Activities.........................    29
                                                                    129
                Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...........    29
                                                                    139
                Naval Reactors.............................    30
                                                                    145
                Office of the Administrator................    31
                                                                    147
        Environmental and Other Defense Activities.........    31
                                                                    148
                Defense Environmental Cleanup..............    31
                                                                    148
                Other Defense Activities...................    32
                                                                    152
        Power Marketing Administrations:                       --
                                                                    153
                Bonneville Power Administration Fund.......    32
                                                                    153
                Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern 
                    Power Administration...................    33
                                                                    154
                Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern 
                    Power Administration...................    34
                                                                    154
                Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and 
                    Maintenance, Western Area Power 
                    Administration.........................    35
                                                                    155
                Falcon and Amistad Operating and 
                    Maintenance Fund.......................    37
                                                                    155
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    38
                                                                    156
        Committee Recommendation...........................    --
                                                                    157
        General Provisions.................................    39
                                                                    191
IV. Independent Agencies:                                      51
                                                                    192
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    51
                                                                    192
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    51
                                                                    192
        Delta Regional Authority...........................    51
                                                                    193
        Denali Commission..................................    52
                                                                    193
        Northern Border Regional Commission................    52
                                                                    193
        Southeast Crescent Regional Commission.............    52
                                                                    194
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    52
                                                                    194
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    54
                                                                    197
        General Provisions.................................    55
                                                                    197
V. General Provisions                                          56
                                                                    198
House of Representatives Report Requirements...............    --
                                                                    199
Additional Views...........................................    --
                                                                    222

                SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal 
Year 2015. The following table summarizes appropriations for 
fiscal year 2014, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended 
in the bill for fiscal year 2015.


                              INTRODUCTION

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2015 totals $34,010,000,000, $50,499,000 below the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2014 and $326,862,000 above 
the President's budget request. Total defense funding is 
$17,150,000,000, $45,499,000 below the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 2014 and $828,688,000 below the budget request. 
Total non-defense funding is $16,860,000,000, $5,000,000 below 
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2014 and $1,155,550,000 
above the budget request. After adjusting for the Department of 
Energy's $463,000,000 legislative proposal, which the Committee 
rejects, total defense funding is $365,688,000 below the budget 
request, and total non-defense funding is $692,550,000 above 
the budget request.
    Title I of the bill provides $5,492,499,000 for the Civil 
Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $25,000,000 
above fiscal year 2014 and $959,499,000 above the budget 
request. Total funding for activities eligible for 
reimbursement from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is 
estimated at more than $1,100,000,000, more than $185,000,000 
above the budget request.
    Title II provides $1,013,569,000 for the Department of the 
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $99,529,000 below 
fiscal year 2014 and $29,426,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee recommends $1,003,695,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation, $100,678,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$32,000,000 below the budget request for accounts traditionally 
within the Bureau of Reclamation. The Committee recommends 
$9,874,000 for the Central Utah Project, $1,149,000 above 
fiscal year 2014 and $2,574,000 above the budget request.
    Title III provides $27,305,845,000 for the Department of 
Energy, $24,799,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $1,130,583,000 
below the budget request. After adjusting for the Department's 
$463,000,000 legislative proposal, which the Committee rejects, 
the funding for the Department of Energy is $667,583,000 below 
the budget request. Funding for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA), which includes nuclear weapons 
activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation, naval reactors, 
and the Office of the NNSA Administrator, is $11,361,570,000, 
$154,570,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $296,430,000 below the 
budget request.
    Funding for energy programs within the Department of 
Energy, which includes basic science research and the applied 
energy programs, is $10,323,800,000, $112,996,000 above fiscal 
year 2014 and $269,090,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee recommends $5,071,000,000 for the Office of Science; 
$1,789,000,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 
$899,000,000 for Nuclear Energy; $593,000,000 for Fossil 
Energy; and $280,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects 
Agency--Energy.
    Environmental management activities--non-defense 
environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and 
decommissioning, and defense environmental cleanup--are funded 
at $5,628,430,000, $202,158,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$6,742,000 above the budget request.
    Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided 
at the requested levels.
    Title IV provides $312,367,000 for several Independent 
Agencies, $47,223,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $63,652,000 
above the budget request. Net funding for the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission is $172,278,000, $49,062,000 above fiscal 
year 2014 and $50,000,000 above the budget request.

                     Overview of the Recommendation

    The Committee recommendation continues the strong 
investments in American infrastructure contained in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (Division D of Public 
Law 113-76). The recommendation rejects the Administration's 
ill-considered request to cut approximately $700 million from 
critical Army Corps of Engineers efforts to keep the nation's 
rivers and ports dredged and to protect farmland and cities 
from flooding. Such a drastic reduction would have a 
deleterious impact on the nation's economic competitiveness and 
flood defenses. The Committee strongly encourages the 
Administration to request a fiscal year 2016 budget that 
recognizes and supports these critical missions of the Corps of 
Engineers.
    The recommendation also includes significant support to 
ensure the short- and long-term supply of affordable, clean 
energy and the stability of the nation's electrical 
infrastructure. This portfolio builds upon this country's 
significant fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy resources to 
strengthen American energy independence. The recommendation 
makes key investments in technologies to help our energy sector 
adjust to a challenging regulatory environment by supporting 
advances in efficiency and emissions reduction.
    Due to the limitation on defense funding contained in the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Division A of Public Law 113-
67), the Committee is unable to provide adequate support for 
all priorities within the National Nuclear Security 
Administration and other security-related programs funded by 
this recommendation. The Committee therefore continues its 
strong emphasis on maintaining the nuclear deterrent, including 
the nuclear weapons and naval reactors programs. To provide 
additional support for nuclear nonproliferation programs above 
the budget request, the recommendation redirects prior-year 
funding from stalled programs to be used for current 
priorities.

                       National Defense Programs

    As in previous years, the Committee considers the national 
defense programs run by the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) to be the Department of Energy's top 
priority. Even within the limited resources available for 
fiscal year 2015, the recommendation provides robust support 
for the President's proposals to modernize the nuclear weapons 
stockpile, increase investment in the NNSA's infrastructure, 
prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials, and support the 
naval nuclear propulsion program within funding for Weapons 
Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval 
Reactors.
    The recommendation continues the Committee's strong support 
for the NNSA's Weapons Activities. The Administration has 
embarked on a multi-year plan to modernize the nation's nuclear 
weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure. Early 
formulations of the modernization plan tended to focus on 
stretch goals for warhead life extension programs and major 
construction projects that were based on overly optimistic 
timelines and invalid cost assumptions. The NNSA's failure to 
deliver on those promises has damaged the credibility of the 
organization. However, the fiscal year 2015 budget request is a 
positive development due to the increased emphasis on 
conservative strategies that are attainable, affordable, and 
ultimately more realistic. While there will continue to be 
debate on which specific programs should have higher priority 
and how those programs should be carried out, the NNSA must 
evolve to become more mission-oriented and focused on 
successfully carrying out its modernization plans to provide 
assurances that it will not fail in its stewardship of the 
nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. With new leadership in 
place at the Department of Energy and the NNSA, there is an 
opportunity to accelerate this transformation. The Committee is 
encouraged by the engagement the Secretary has shown to date in 
reforming federal oversight at the Department. The Committee is 
hopeful that the new NNSA Administrator will continue to 
advance management reforms that have been set in motion. As the 
NNSA makes progress in resolving the inconsistencies between 
its goals for modernization and its ability to achieve those 
goals, the Committee will continue to hold the NNSA accountable 
for delivering its commitments on time and within budget.
    The recommendation fully funds the Administration's budget 
request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, while 
reprioritizing activities within the account to reinvigorate 
the nonproliferation research and development base of the 
national laboratories. The United States government has made 
great strides working with its global partners to limit the 
potential spread of fissile materials, but our national 
strategies must evolve with the changing geopolitical 
environment. There will be consequences to Russia's recent 
behavior in Ukraine with respect to how the United States 
government engages with the Russian Federation. The Secretary 
of Energy must reevaluate the Department's cooperative nuclear 
security activities to ensure those programs are effectively 
and measurably promoting our national security interests. At 
the same time, those programs must continue to make progress on 
preventing the spread of nuclear materials and technologies and 
adapt to meet the latest threats.
    The Committee strongly supports the strategic protection 
afforded by our country's nuclear fleet, which is supported 
through the Naval Reactors account. The recommendation 
prioritizes strategic activities, such as the Ohio-class 
ballistic submarine replacement reactor program, while delaying 
infrastructure and technology development needs that, while 
also important, can be slightly deferred with no strategic 
repercussions. The Committee greatly appreciates the service of 
the members of our country's armed forces and will continue to 
place the highest priority on support for them and their work.

                  Supporting American Competitiveness

    The agencies and programs funded by the recommendation are 
critical engines for the prosperity of the nation. The Army 
Corps of Engineers is responsible for keeping our federal 
waterways open for business. The Corps also has been 
instrumental in reducing the risk of flooding for much of this 
country's food-producing lands. The Bureau of Reclamation, in 
typical water years, supplies reliable water to approximately 
ten percent of this country's population and to much of its 
fertile agricultural lands. The Department of Energy has been 
at the forefront of developing intellectual property in energy 
sciences and other disciplines, the commercialization of new 
ideas, and improvements in energy supply and utilization. 
Working together, these agencies underpin the country's 
economic competitiveness and energy security.
    As the agency responsible for our nation's federal 
waterways, the Army Corps of Engineers maintains 926 coastal, 
Great Lakes, and inland harbors and 25,000 miles of commercial 
channels serving 41 states. The maintenance of these commercial 
waterways is directly tied to the ability of this country to 
ship its manufactured and bulk products, as well as to compete 
with the ports of neighboring countries for the business of 
ships arriving from around the world. These waterways handled 
foreign commerce valued at more than $1,774,000,000,000 in 2012 
alone. As a primary supporter of America's waterway 
infrastructure, the Corps is ensuring that the nation has the 
tools to maintain a competitive edge in the global market. This 
recommendation provides significant funding above the budget 
request to ensure that the Corps has the necessary tools to 
continue to support America's shipping infrastructure.
    The flood protection infrastructure that the Corps builds 
or maintains reduces the risk of flooding to people, 
businesses, and other public infrastructure investments. In 
fact, the average annual damages prevented by Corps projects 
from 2003 to 2012 was $36,200,000,000. Between 1928 and 2012, 
each inflation-adjusted dollar invested in these projects 
prevented $7.90 in damages. The properties and investments 
protected by the Corps infrastructure would often be flooded 
without that infrastructure, destroying homes, businesses, and 
many valuable acres of cropland.
    The Bureau of Reclamation's water infrastructure is a 
critical component of the agricultural productivity of this 
country. One of every five western farmers, representing 
approximately 10 million acres of irrigated land that produces 
60 percent of the nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its 
fruits and nuts, relies on these facilities for water. 
Additionally, more than 31 million people rely on these 
facilities for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Without 
these dams and water supply facilities, American agricultural 
producers in the West would not be able to access safe water 
for their families and their businesses and many municipal and 
industrial users would face critical water shortages.
    The Department of Energy supports essential research that 
has helped keep America at the cutting-edge of science and 
technology innovation. Given the limited resources available 
this year, the recommendation places a higher priority on 
research that only the government is likely to do, research 
that advances our basic scientific understanding, and research 
that has commercialization possibilities only in the distant 
future.
    Research and development for technologies that are closer 
to commercialization, and thus that the private sector has more 
incentive to take up, receive less funding than in fiscal year 
2014. However, the recommendation does continue a long-standing 
commitment by the Committee to the type of research that will 
improve American energy security and independence. The 
recommendations for Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency--
Energy are balanced to improve the efficiency of existing forms 
of energy production, to develop new and innovative forms of 
energy for this nation's long-term security and prosperity, and 
to help American manufacturing compete in the global 
marketplace.
    As noted in prior years, the Department has not been as 
successful ensuring that intellectual property developed with 
U.S. taxpayer funds benefits those same taxpayers. The 
Department still has no coherent and implementable strategy to 
track and improve domestic exploitation of Department-developed 
intellectual property. Without such a strategy, U.S. 
manufacturing will too frequently be forced to play ``catch-
up'' with foreign competitors benefitting from ideas formed 
here in the U.S. The Committee strongly urges the Secretary to 
take more of a leadership role in improving U.S. manufacturing 
and domestic intellectual property retention.

                     Program and Project Management

    The Committee remains concerned about the Department of 
Energy's oversight and management of its programs and projects, 
despite several policy, process, and organizational 
improvements that have been implemented over the past few 
years. While the Department has demonstrated noted progress in 
its ability to deliver small projects on schedule and within 
budget, the Department continues to struggle to keep its major 
construction projects on track. The Department has no baseline 
against which it can monitor progress on the full scope of its 
major environmental cleanup projects, the Waste Treatment and 
Immobilization Plant and the Salt Waste Processing Facility. As 
a result, the Department is unable to provide to the Committee 
the anticipated cost and schedule for completing those 
projects. Of the ongoing major construction projects of the 
NNSA, the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility and the Uranium 
Processing Facility are both facing serious challenges, and it 
has become clear that the Department may not have sufficient 
funds to complete these facilities in a timely manner. Even as 
the Department analyzes potential alternatives, the Committee 
is concerned that it may be repeating the mistakes of the past 
by relying on poor cost estimates and rushing to commence 
construction activities before planning activities are 
sufficiently mature. Of significant concern is the Department's 
continued practice of avoiding enforcement of its own project 
management regulations. The Department's lack of enforcement of 
its own standards has been found to be a root cause of its 
continued presence on the Government Accountability Office's 
``high-risk list'' for project management. The Department 
submitted a reprogramming request to the Committee to initiate 
a major recapitalization of its plutonium infrastructure at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory using operating funds, despite 
having formal requirements under DOE Order 413.3B which clearly 
applied to the acquisition of those capital assets. The 
Committee will not support requests for capital investments 
that do not provide sufficient accountability for delivering 
those investments within budget and on schedule. The Committee 
expects the Department to not only monitor performance of its 
projects, but also ensure that its requirements are not being 
circumvented by simply redefining what scope of work is 
considered to be a ``project.'' The Committee also notes that 
the Department is continuing to allow programs to make capital 
investments using site indirect funds over which the Department 
has little visibility.
    While the Department is clearly struggling with how to 
consistently enforce its own regulations, the Committee notes 
that it has made some progress. The Secretary of Energy has 
proposed positive organizational changes that will enhance the 
authority of the Office of Management to oversee program and 
project performance and to enforce standards. The Committee 
supports this proposal and directs the Department to expedite 
measures to strengthen internal oversight while its 
organizational reforms are being carried out. The budget 
request also properly identifies capital projects carried out 
by the Office of Environmental Management to comply with 
statutory requirements.
    The Committee remains concerned about the management of the 
Department's research and development activities, although it 
notes significant improvements from previous years. The 
Department has taken steps to ensure that taxpayer funding is 
only invested in programs with clear guidelines and 
expectations, and the Committee expects that the nascent 
reforms within the energy efficiency and renewable energy 
activities will help foster a culture in which projects are 
terminated when those expectations are not met.
    The Committee recognizes the improvements made by most of 
the Department to reduce ``mortgages,'' funding in any fiscal 
year promised to awards or agreements started in prior years. 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, once one of the 
greatest offenders, is now on par with Nuclear Energy and 
Fossil Energy, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 
included statutory language requiring the Office of Science to 
fully fund its multi-year awards valued at less than 
$1,000,000. Minimal mortgages allow these offices to ensure 
that new resources in any fiscal year are allocated to the 
highest value projects, rather than to previous years' 
priorities. Program managers can actively manage their 
portfolios, ensuring that well-performing awardees are fully 
resourced without having to accommodate uncertainties about 
future-years' budgets.
    The Committee's concerns regarding program and project 
management are not limited to the Department of Energy. The 
Corps of Engineers has suffered several significant failings in 
recent years that have resulted in cost increases for projects, 
such as the massive cost escalation associated with the Olmsted 
Locks and Dam project. In some cases, the Administration has 
not requested authorization increases in time for the Congress 
to act before projects experience delays. The Committee enacted 
new requirements in fiscal year 2014 intended to address these 
problems, but to date--five months after enactment--the Corps 
has not complied with the Committee's directions. In addition, 
the Committee notes that the Corps still has not submitted a 
complete work plan for fiscal year 2014, nor complied with 
several other oversight initiatives necessary to safeguard 
taxpayer dollars. As a result, the Committee provides 
additional direction regarding the Corps' management of its 
programs and projects under the heading ``Title I--Corps of 
Engineers--Civil.''

                         National Energy Policy

    Unfortunately, this budget request once again fails to 
reflect a coherent energy policy or plan for this country. The 
President continues to highlight an ``all of the above'' energy 
portfolio in his speeches, but fails to present such a balanced 
approach in his budget requests. The fiscal year 2015 budget 
request, like its predecessors, instead seems more ideological 
than practical. The request makes cuts to fossil energy 
research and, to a much lesser extent, nuclear energy 
research--this country's most important energy sources--in 
order to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable 
energy programs by 22 percent. As attractive as renewable 
energy may be, it will supply only a mere fraction of this 
country's energy needs over the next 50 years, and it presents 
considerable challenges to the nation's existing electric power 
grid, given its increasing variability and uncertainty from 
supply and demand changes.
    At the same time, the Administration is moving forward with 
several regulations that will have a significant impact on 
energy use in the coming years and that reveal the 
inconsistencies of the Administration's purported ``all of the 
above'' energy policy. The Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) proposed rules to regulate carbon pollution from new 
fossil-fueled electric power plants, first proposed in 
September 2013, and from existing fossil-fueled electric power 
plants, first proposed in June 2014, will have a significant 
impact on energy production, consumption, and reliability. 
Fossil fuels currently provide 82 percent of the energy used by 
the nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide 
for a majority of our energy needs in the coming years, yet the 
Administration has proposed to reduce the fossil energy 
research and development program to its lowest programmatic 
level since fiscal year 2000. This program conducts the very 
research into carbon capture and storage technologies that will 
now be required for certain new fossil-fuel electric power 
plants given the EPA's proposed rules on carbon pollution. 
Further inconsistencies can be seen in the Administration's 
proposal to reduce core research funding for nuclear energy, 
which will continue to be a vital base load electricity source 
in future years, and the Administration's willful disregard of 
the federal government's legal responsibilities regarding Yucca 
Mountain, which has resulted in no disposition pathway for 
civilian spent nuclear fuel and defense waste resulting from 
the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Time and again this 
Administration has failed to put forward a strategic vision for 
a truly ``all of the above'' national energy policy that is 
sound both scientifically and economically.
    The Committee continues its long-standing support for the 
investment of taxpayer dollars across the spectrum of all 
technologies, as reflected in this recommendation, and supports 
a clearly articulated, consensus-based national energy policy 
that achieves the long-term strategic goals of energy security, 
independence, and prosperity for the nation. Such a vision will 
emphasize a balanced approach for all energy sources and 
include a long-term strategic vision of the nation's fossil, 
nuclear, and renewable energy programs in the coming years, as 
well as the scientific and technical challenges to be overcome. 
The Committee encourages the new leadership of the Department 
of Energy to develop a consensus energy policy which is sound 
both scientifically and economically. This policy should 
support the budget request for fiscal year 2016.

                    Committee Oversight Initiatives

    The highest priority mission of any federal agency is to be 
an effective steward of taxpayer dollars. Any waste, fraud, or 
abuse of taxpayer dollars is unacceptable. The Committee uses 
hearings, reviews by the Government Accountability Office, the 
Committee on Appropriations' Surveys and Investigations staff, 
and its annual appropriations Act, including the accompanying 
report, to promote strong oversight of the agencies under its 
jurisdiction, with an emphasis on the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of 
Energy.
    The recommendation continues the Committee's responsibility 
to conduct in-depth oversight into all activities funded in 
this bill. Each agency shall designate a specific point of 
contact to track each report required in the bill and ensure 
its timely production and delivery.
    A summary of the major oversight efforts in the bill is 
provided below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Agency/Account                         Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Corps of Engineers.....................  Report on 3x3x3 waiver
                                               process
Army Corps of Engineers.....................  Direction on Principles
                                               and Guidelines
Army Corps of Engineers.....................  Report on impacts of
                                               revised Principles and
                                               Requirements
Army Corps of Engineers.....................  Direction to prioritize
                                               ongoing studies and
                                               projects
Army Corps of Engineers.....................  Comprehensive estimate for
                                               completing ongoing
                                               projects
Army Corps of Engineers.....................  Guidance on ratings
                                               systems for allocating
                                               additional funds
Army Corps of Engineers.....................  Guidance on 2015 Work Plan
                                               submission
Army Corps of Engineers/Investigations......  Direction on the Passaic
                                               River Main Stem Study
Army Corps of Engineers/Construction........  Guidance and reporting
                                               requirements on the
                                               Savannah Harbor Expansion
                                               project
Army Corps of Engineers/Construction........  Report on distribution of
                                               Continuing Authorities
                                               Program
Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and         Report on status of Corps
 Maintenance.                                  lands in the Lower Snake
                                               River
Army Corps of Engineers/Regulatory Program..  Guidance on Congressional
                                               interpretation of Clean
                                               Water Act
Army Corps of Engineers/FUSRAP..............  Guidance on investigation
                                               and study at former
                                               Sylvania site
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses............  Plan and status updates on
                                               funding 2014 Authorizing
                                               legislation provisions
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses............  Report on complying with
                                               ability to pay rule
Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions..  Reprogramming requirements
Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions..  Restriction on use of
                                               continuing contracts
Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions..  Restriction on committing
                                               funds beyond appropriated
                                               amounts
Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions..  Restriction on changing
                                               certain Clean Water Act
                                               definitions
Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions..  Restriction on revising
                                               federal jurisdiction
                                               under the Clean Water Act
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related       Direction on Scoggins Dam,
 Resources.                                    Tualatin Project
Bureau of Reclamation/Policy and              Guidance on new scope of
 Administration.                               information for budget
                                               justifications
Bureau of Reclamation/Policy and              Report on five year
 Administration.                               comprehensive spending
                                               plan
Bureau of Reclamation/General Provisions....  Reprogramming requirements
Department of Energy........................  Requirement for monthly
                                               financial balances report
Department of Energy........................  Report on Department's
                                               Program Direction
                                               accounts
Department of Energy........................  Guidance on prior-year
                                               balances greater than
                                               five years old
Department of Energy........................  Guidance on
                                               Administration's Yucca
                                               Mountain policy
Department of Energy........................  Guidance on inclusion of
                                               centers in future budget
                                               justifications
Department of Energy........................  Direction on funding
                                               fellowship and
                                               scholarship programs
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and    Report on national lab
 Renewable Energy.                             capabilities for
                                               expanding battery
                                               performance
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and    Direction on recycled
 Renewable Energy.                             paper segregated from
                                               municipal solid waste
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and    Direction on supporting
 Renewable Energy.                             supply chain technology
                                               efforts for solar cells
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and    Report on benefits of
 Renewable Energy.                             mechanical insulation
                                               maintenance and upgrade
                                               programs in federal
                                               facilities
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and    Guidance on including CEMI
 Renewable Energy.                             Institutes in future
                                               budget justifications
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and    Direction on building
 Renewable Energy.                             energy codes
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and    Guidance on engagement for
 Renewable Energy.                             housing energy standards
Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery     Report on resiliency and
 and Energy Reliability.                       reliability of national
                                               power grid
Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery     Report on workforce plan
 and Energy Reliability.                       of future OER program
Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery     Report on physical and
 and Energy Reliability.                       cyber security of the
                                               grid
Department of Energy/Nuclear................  Direction to support an
                                               SMR design award
Department of Energy/Nuclear................  Guidance on dry cask
                                               storage research and
                                               development
Department of Energy/Nuclear................  Guidance on cost-share of
                                               advanced supercritical
                                               carbon dioxide
                                               demonstration projects
                                               funding
Department of Energy/Fossil.................  Report on liquefied
                                               natural gas export
                                               applications
Department of Energy/Fossil.................  Guidance on full-time
                                               equivalent information
Department of Energy/Fossil.................  Guidance on efficiency of
                                               natural gas research
Department of Energy/Fossil.................  Direction on interagency
                                               plan regarding hydraulic
                                               fracturing
Department of Energy/Fossil.................  Report on unconventional
                                               fossil energy
                                               technologies
Department of Energy/Non-Defense              Report on spent nuclear
 Environmental Cleanup.                        fuel storage costs
Department of Energy/UED&D..................;  Report on commencing
                                               decommissioning
                                               activities at Paducah
Department of Energy/UED&D..................;  Guidance on funding for
                                               thorium/uranium
                                               reimbursements
Department of Energy/Science................  Guidance on cash
                                               contributions to ITER
Department of Energy/Title 17...............  Report on portfolio
                                               monitoring and risk
                                               management
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Prohibition on funding
                                               defined benefit pensions
                                               above requirements
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Report on improvements to
                                               future life extension
                                               programs
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Guidance on dedicated
                                               funding for stockpile
                                               certification
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Prohibition on funding for
                                               new reactor fueling
                                               agreements for reactors
                                               not producing tritium
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Consolidation of
                                               production-related
                                               technology development
                                               under Advanced
                                               Manufacturing Campaign
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Guidance on prioritization
                                               and reporting for NNSA
                                               infrastructure projects
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Analysis of alternatives
                                               for Albuquerque Complex
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Report on acquisition plan
                                               for secure transportation
                                               asset
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Guidance on domestic
                                               nuclear emergency
                                               response
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Guidance on future
                                               domestic enriched uranium
                                               funds
Department of Energy/Weapons................  Analysis of alternatives
                                               for providing enriched
                                               uranium for national
                                               security purposes
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear          Guidance on new
 Nonproliferation.                             nonproliferation projects
                                               in Russia
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear          Guidance on reinvestment
 Nonproliferation.                             in nonproliferation-
                                               related R&D;
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear          Prohibition on placing MOX
 Nonproliferation.                             plant in cold standby
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear          Guidance on continued
 Nonproliferation.                             study of limited MOX
                                               alternatives
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear          Requirement for
 Nonproliferation.                             independent verification
                                               of lifecycle cost
                                               estimate for MOX
                                               alternatives
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear          Review of cost sharing
 Nonproliferation.                             agreement between EM and
                                               NNSA
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors.........  Multi-year budget review
                                               of programmatic
                                               requirements
Department of Energy/Defense Environmental    Report on Hanford tank
 Cleanup.                                      maintenance and upgrade
                                               requirements
Department of Energy/Defense Environmental    Guidance on progress at
 Cleanup.                                      SPRU
Department of Energy/Defense Environmental    Review of cost sharing
 Cleanup.                                      agreement between EM and
                                               NNSA
Department of Energy/Defense Environmental    Direction on developing a
 Cleanup.                                      formal WIPP Recovery Plan
Department of Energy/Defense Environmental    Analysis of DOE spent fuel
 Cleanup.                                      storage infrastructure
Department of Energy/Other Defense            Report on oversight
 Activities.                                   activities
Department of Energy/Other Defense            Guidance on updating
 Activities.                                   Graded Security Posture
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission........  Report on increased
                                               electricity costs and
                                               impacts
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission........  Report on plan to complete
                                               consideration of
                                               liquefied natural gas
                                               export applications
Department of Energy/General Provision......  Reprogramming requirements
Department of Energy/General Provision......  Transfer authority
                                               specifications
Department of Energy/General Provision......  Prohibit funds for high
                                               hazard nuclear facilities
                                               construction unless cost
                                               estimates have been
                                               developed
Department of Energy/General Provision......  Prohibit funds approving
                                               CD-2 and CD-3 without
                                               separate cost estimates
Department of Energy/General Provision......  Notification requirements
                                               for uranium transfers
Department of Energy/General Provision......  Prohibit certain multi-
                                               year funding agreements
                                               in Office of Science
Department of Energy/General Provision......  Requirement for cost
                                               reporting for major
                                               warhead refurbishment
                                               programs
Department of Energy/General Provision......  Restriction of certain
                                               activities in the Russian
                                               Federation
Department of Energy/General Provision......  Restriction of Strategic
                                               Petroleum Reserve
                                               activities and
                                               notification requirements
Department of Energy/General Provision......  Limitation on LDRD
                                               activities
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...............  Requirement on reporting
                                               unobligated funds
                                               allocations
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...............  Requirement for joint
                                               management of salaries
                                               and expenses
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...............  Prohibition on terminating
                                               programs without
                                               Commissioner approval
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...............  Notification requirement
                                               for use of emergency
                                               functions
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...............  Direction on Yucca
                                               Mountain license
                                               application and funding
                                               needs
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...............  Semi-annual report on
                                               licensing and regulatory
                                               activities
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...............  Report on workforce review
                                               and strategic plan
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...............  Report on input and
                                               regulatory analysis of 10
                                               CFR Part 50 or 52
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...............  Report on National
                                               Framework recommendations
Independent Agencies/General Provision......  Reporting requirement on
                                               use of emergency
                                               authority
Independent Agencies/General Provision......  Requirement for NRC to
                                               comply with Congressional
                                               requests
General Provision...........................  Prohibition on the use of
                                               funds to influence
                                               congressional action
General Provision...........................  Limitation and reporting
                                               requirement on funds that
                                               support a corporation
                                               convicted of a felony
General Provision...........................  Limitation and reporting
                                               requirement on funds that
                                               support a corporation
                                               with unpaid tax
                                               liabilities
General Provision...........................  Consolidation of transfer
                                               authorities
General Provision...........................  Prohibition of funds in
                                               contravention of
                                               Executive Order 12898
General Provision...........................  Prohibition on use of
                                               funds to close Yucca
                                               Mountain application
                                               process
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL


                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY


                       Corps of Engineers--Civil


                              INTRODUCTION

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act funds 
the Civil Works missions of the Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps). This program is responsible for activities in support 
of coastal and inland navigation, flood and coastal storm 
damage reduction, environmental protection and restoration, 
hydropower, recreation, water supply and disaster preparedness 
and response. The Corps also performs regulatory oversight of 
navigable waters. Approximately 23,000 civilians and almost 300 
military personnel located in eight Division offices and 38 
District offices work to carry out the Civil Works program.

         FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

    The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Civil Works 
program of the Corps of Engineers is $4,533,000,000, a decrease 
of $934,499,000 from fiscal year 2014. After adjusting for a 
proposed rescission of $28,000,000 of prior-year 
appropriations, the budget request represents a reduction from 
fiscal year 2014 of $906,499,000 (17%). Each of the four main 
project-based accounts would see a sharp decrease under the 
budget request. As in previous years, the largest dollar 
reduction is in the Construction account ($531,000,000), 
although the Investigations account sees the largest percentage 
reduction (36%). The Mississippi River and Tributaries and 
Operation and Maintenance accounts are reduced by 20 percent 
and 9 percent, respectively. The budget request proposes to 
reduce funding for activities eligible for reimbursement from 
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by more than $160,000,000 
from fiscal year 2014.
    Although the Administration, on occasion, talks about the 
importance of infrastructure investment, the fiscal year 2015 
budget request represents a different story entirely. Under the 
budget request, funding for both navigation and flood and storm 
damage reduction--the Committee's two highest priorities for 
the Corps' Civil Works program--is decreased significantly (20% 
and 16%, respectively). Investments in both of these mission 
areas not only provide short-term economic benefits by directly 
creating jobs, but also provide the foundation necessary for 
long-term economic growth. Further, in the case of flood and 
storm damage reduction, investment can prevent or reduce the 
costs of recovery from flood events.
    The Committee rejects the low priority placed on 
infrastructure in the budget request. Instead, the Committee 
allocates $868,832,000 above the budget request for additional 
investments in navigation and flood and storm damage reduction 
improvements.
    Budget Criteria.--According to the Administration, the 
Corps budget request is a performance-based budget developed 
using objective performance criteria. Besides that assertion, 
though, the budget development process remains considerably 
less than transparent. The request lists the general factors 
considered for allocating funds within each account, but does 
not detail how any of these factors were ranked or weighted 
during development of the budget.
    Perhaps most concerning is the fact that the budget metrics 
were not applied consistently to all previously funded 
projects. In other words, numerous ongoing studies and 
projects, previously funded by congressional direction, were 
not even eligible to compete for inclusion in the President's 
budget with the only explanation the vague characterization of 
not being consistent with Administration policy. While this 
exclusion is not new this year, or even with this 
Administration, it nevertheless casts doubt on the true 
objectivity of the budget development process.
    Project Completions and Initiations.--The budget request 
for the Investigations account includes funding to complete a 
total of 34 studies and project designs. Funding is requested 
for 10 new studies. The budget request for the Construction 
account includes funding to complete nine projects and to 
initiate one new project. It should be noted that the sizable 
number of budgeted completions is only possible due to the 
additional funding provided in previous fiscal years by the 
Congress.

                         DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION

    The Committee remains mindful of the evolving 
infrastructure needs of the nation's ports. Meeting these 
needs--including deeper drafts to accommodate the move towards 
larger ships--will be essential if the nation is to remain 
competitive in international markets and to continue advancing 
economic development and job creation domestically.
    Investigations and construction of port projects, including 
the deepening of existing projects, are cost-shared between the 
federal government and non-federal sponsors, often local or 
regional port authorities. The operation and maintenance of 
these projects are federal responsibilities and are funded as 
reimbursements from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), 
which is supported by an ad valorem tax on the value of 
imported and domestic cargo. Expenditures from the trust fund 
are subject to annual appropriations. The balance in the HMTF 
by the beginning of fiscal year 2015 is estimated to be 
approximately $8,500,000,000.
    Congress historically has appropriated more funding for 
HMTF-related activities each year than is included in that 
year's budget request. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee 
provides more than $1,100,000,000 for HMTF-related activities, 
an increase of more than $185,000,000 above the budget request. 
This substantial increase should allow the Corps to make 
progress on the backlog of dredging needs.
    The recently enacted Water Resources Reform and Development 
Act of 2014 (WRRDA) included provisions setting target annual 
appropriations levels for use of HMTF receipts and setting 
percentages of HMTF funding to be provided to various 
activities. The Committee remains committed to providing the 
maximum practicable amount of funding for HMTF-reimbursable 
activities consistent with annual allocations and after 
evaluating funding requirements for other priority activities 
within the Civil Works program. In fact, the Committee 
increased the amount appropriated for HMTF-reimbursable 
activities by more than $300,000,000 from fiscal year 2011 to 
this recommendation, even without statutory target levels. The 
Committee is in the process of evaluating how the 
prioritization provisions may be implemented and the expected 
results. Therefore, this recommendation continues the approach 
used in previous fiscal years, although changes may be 
necessary at a later date.

                        INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM

    The nation's inland waterways system--consisting of 
approximately 12,000 miles of commercially navigable channels 
and 236 lock chambers--also is essential to supporting the 
national economy. Freight transported on the inland waterways 
system includes a significant portion of the nation's grain 
exports, domestic petroleum and petroleum products, and coal 
used in electricity generation. Much of the physical 
infrastructure of the system is aging, however, and in need of 
improvements. For example, commercial navigation locks 
typically have a design life of 50 years, yet nearly 60 percent 
of these locks in the United States are more than 50 years old, 
with the average age at almost 60 years old.
    Capital improvements to the inland waterways system 
generally are funded 50 percent from the General Treasury and 
50 percent from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), while 
operation and maintenance costs are funded 100 percent from the 
General Treasury. The IWTF is supported by a $0.20 per gallon 
tax on barge fuel. In recent years, the increasing 
rehabilitation and reconstruction needs and the escalating 
costs of those projects have far outstripped available revenues 
in the IWTF. In fact, over the past several years, the majority 
of available revenues have been allocated to just one project--
the Olmsted Locks and Dam project.
    The recently enacted WRRDA reduced the portion of the costs 
of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project to be derived from the 
IWTF to 15 percent. This change means there will be revenues 
available for the required cost-share for some additional work 
on the inland waterways system. Funds from both the General 
Treasury and the IWTF are counted under overall discretionary 
spending limits, however, so the available revenues should not 
be considered free money or automatic allocations in any sense. 
The WRRDA provision does allow the Committee to consider the 
needs of the inland system along with the needs of other 
components of the Civil Works program; in previous years, the 
Committee was unable to even consider additional work on the 
inland system due to the lack of revenues available from the 
IWTF.
    For fiscal year 2015, the Committee provides the budget 
request of $169,032,000 for construction of the Olmsted Locks 
and Dam project and the Locks 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River 
project, as well as $112,000,000 above the budget request for 
additional capital improvements to the inland waterways system. 
The Committee also allocates $45,000,000 above the budget 
request for additional operation and maintenance activities on 
the inland waterways.

                         PLANNING MODERNIZATION

    The Committee strongly supports efforts to reduce the 
length of time and the funding required to complete studies 
while maintaining quality analysis and an appropriate level of 
information for congressional authorization and funding 
decisions. The Corps is working to make these improvements 
through its SMART Planning process (commonly referred to as 
``3x3x3''), which sets the goal of completing most feasibility 
studies within three years, for no more than $3,000,000, and 
with the decision document coordinated by three levels of the 
organization (headquarters, division, and district offices).
    The Committee is aware, however, that not all studies will 
fit within the 3x3x3 model and that the Corps has established a 
waiver process for such studies. The Corps shall report to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate not later than 60 days after enactment of this 
Act on the details of the waiver process. This information 
shall include how the waiver process is managed across the 
three levels of the organization, how many waivers have been 
approved to date, the timeline from district request to 
approval for such waivers, ways the Corps is streamlining the 
waiver process so as not to delay unnecessarily studies that do 
not fit the 3x3x3 model, and any additional steps necessary to 
comply with related provisions in the recently enacted WRRDA.

                          PERFORMANCE MEASURES

    The Committee is pleased that the Corps included 
performance measures in the fiscal year 2015 budget 
justifications. The Committee is concerned, however, that these 
performance measures were not results-oriented; did not clearly 
demonstrate the extent to which performance reporting under 31 
U.S.C. 1116 demonstrates that prior-year investments in 
programs, projects, and activities are tied to progress toward 
achieving performance and priority goals; and did not include 
estimates for how proposed investments will contribute to 
additional progress. The Committee encourages the Corps to 
continue improving its performance measures, including efforts 
to clarify the connections between individual performance 
measures and strategic goals and objectives, demonstrate how 
the funding requested is expected to affect performance 
measures, and avoid overly technical language or jargon.

                 COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    The fiscal year 2014 Act included several reporting 
requirements for the Corps of Engineers. Unfortunately, to 
date, the Corps has not complied with many of these directives. 
The Committee does not issue directives frivolously. The 
information sought through these reporting requirements is 
necessary to the Committee fulfilling its oversight 
responsibilities and to developing the fiscal year 2015 and 
future year recommendations. The Committee continues to expect 
the Corps to submit all required reports.
    The following reports required in fiscal year 2014 have not 
been submitted as of the writing of this report or have been 
incomplete:
          (1) Work plan for additional funding--incomplete;
                  -- ratings system--incomplete;
                  -- summary of work to be completed with 
                funding--not submitted;
                  -- list of and information on eligible but 
                unfunded projects--not submitted;
          (2) New construction starts affordability analysis--
        incomplete;
          (3) Report on compensatory mitigation for critical 
        infrastructure projects--not submitted;
          (4) Report on metrics suitable for use in evaluating 
        aquatic ecosystem restoration projects--not submitted;
          (5) Comprehensive estimate related to ongoing 
        construction projects--not submitted;
          (6) Plan for the oversight and management of 902 
        limit project modifications--not submitted;
          (7) List of projects with the potential to exceed 902 
        limits--not submitted;
          (8) Report on policy regarding coastal storm damage 
        reduction projects--not submitted; and
          (9) Report on plan for allowing firearms on Corps 
        lands--not submitted.

To demonstrate clearly the extent of the Committee's 
dissatisfaction with the Administration's disregard of 
congressional direction, the recommendation reduces funding for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 
Works).

                    SECTION 902 AUTHORIZATION LIMITS

    As noted above, the Administration has not yet submitted 
the required plan for the oversight and management of section 
902 authorized cost project modifications or the list of 
projects with the potential to exceed the 902 limit. The 
Committee is aware that the WRRDA included a few such project 
modifications and that the Corps currently is working on 
completing necessary reports for other projects expected to 
exceed the 902 limit. The Committee is prepared to consider 
additional project modifications as the Corps completes the 
reports and submits recommendations to the Congress.

                      PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS

    Concerns persist that the effort to update the Water 
Resources Principles and Guidelines is not proceeding 
consistent with the language or intent of section 2031 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007. No funds provided to 
the Corps of Engineers shall be used to develop or implement 
rules or guidance to support implementation of the final 
Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water 
Resources released in March 2013. The Corps shall continue to 
use the document dated March 10, 1983, and entitled ``Economic 
and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and 
Related Land Resources Implementation Studies'' during the 
fiscal year period covered by the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act for 2015. If Interagency Guidelines for 
implementing the March 2013 Principles and Requirements are 
finalized, the Corps shall be ready to report to the 
appropriate committees of the Congress not later than 120 days 
after finalization on the impacts of the revised Principles and 
Requirements and Interagency Guidelines. The Corps shall be 
prepared to explain the intent of each revision, how each 
revision is or is not consistent with section 2031 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007, and the probable impact of 
each revision on water resources projects carried out by the 
Secretary including specific examples of application to at 
least one project from each main mission area of the Corps.

                               NEW STARTS

    Fiscal Year 2014 Implementation.--The Committee considers 
very carefully the decision of whether to provide funding for 
new starts each fiscal year. After three consecutive fiscal 
years with no new starts, the fiscal year 2014 Act allowed the 
Corps to initiate a limited number of new studies and new 
construction projects. Unfortunately, the Administration's 
mismanagement of the fiscal year 2014 authority leaves this 
Committee hesitant to provide similar authority in fiscal year 
2015. Specifically, the fiscal year 2014 Act allowed for up to 
three new study starts where the benefits were primarily for 
environmental restoration. The Administration chose to combine 
two studies that had been proposed in the fiscal year 2014 
budget request into one reconnaissance study and select two 
additional studies to initiate. The Administration's gaming of 
the statutory limit on new starts was made very clear with the 
submission of the fiscal year 2015 budget request, which split 
the combined reconnaissance study into two studies once again. 
A substantive argument for combining the two studies may have 
been persuasive had the studies remained combined or if the 
Administration had chosen only one other study to initiate. As 
circumstances stand, however, the Committee has no choice but 
to believe the Administration's actions were nothing more than 
an effort to contravene clear congressional intent. 
Additionally, the fiscal year 2014 Act required the Corps to 
submit an out-year funding scenario to demonstrate the 
affordability of the new construction starts selected and the 
impact these selections would have on other ongoing 
construction projects. Ten weeks after announcing the new 
starts selected, the Administration submitted an analysis that 
fell far short of what was required.
    Fiscal Year 2015.--The budget request includes funding for 
ten new study starts, even as the Investigations account is 
reduced by 36 percent from fiscal year 2014. The request also 
includes one new construction start, even as the Construction 
account is reduced by 32 percent from fiscal year 2014. This 
proposed project has an estimated federal cost in excess of 
$2,200,000,000, yet the Administration provided no analysis to 
demonstrate its affordability, especially in context of a 
Construction program proposed at only $1,125,000,000 for work 
across the entire country. In light of the Administration's 
mismanagement of the fiscal year 2014 new start authority and 
the lack of information to support the proposed new starts, the 
Committee recommends no new starts in any account in fiscal 
year 2015. The Corps is directed to prioritize ongoing studies 
and projects in an effort to complete them. The Administration 
should be aware that the Committee will remain disinclined to 
fund any new construction starts in the future without a clear 
understanding of the affordability of the proposed projects and 
the impacts to the schedule and cost of other projects in the 
construction program. This information will be necessary prior 
to allowing new starts, rather than after as in fiscal year 
2014.

                    FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

    Comprehensive planning provides important information for 
more than just the evaluation of new starts. Historically, the 
Committee has encouraged the Administration to provide five-
year investment plans for all the agencies within the Energy 
and Water Development jurisdiction. The five-year plan should 
be based on realistic assumptions of project funding needs. It 
is the Committee's expectation that once projects have been 
initiated, the Administration will request responsible annual 
funding levels for them through completion.
    The executive branch has traditionally been unwilling to 
project five-year horizons for projects it has not previously 
supported through the budget process. Comprehensive planning is 
important for understanding future requirements of projects 
that have been supported through the budget process, as well. 
While this unwillingness to have a dialogue regarding 
additional investment might be reasonable under circumstances 
where there is no likelihood of additional investment, the 
Congress consistently has supported additional investment in 
the nation's water resource infrastructure. The uncertainty 
caused by year-to-year federal planning leaves too many non-
federal sponsors unable to make informed decisions regarding 
local funding.
    It would be beneficial for the Congress, the 
Administration, and project partners to have a comprehensive 
plan to outline requirements for all projects that have 
received an appropriation to date or are proposed to begin 
receiving funding this year. The Committee continues to welcome 
a dialogue to reach a mutually-agreeable way to comprehensively 
plan for all initiated projects.
    The Committee notes that last year the Corps was directed 
to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the optimum timeline and 
funding requirements to complete each of the ongoing projects 
that received construction funding in any of fiscal years 2009, 
2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, but were not slated by the 
Administration for construction funding in the fiscal year 2014 
budget request. This report was to have been submitted not 
later than 90 days after enactment of the fiscal year 2014 Act. 
As of the writing of this report, the Committee still has not 
received this information.

                      FORMAT OF FUNDING PRIORITIES

    Traditionally, the President requested and the Congress 
appropriated funds for the Civil Works program on a project-
level basis. Taken together, however, these funding decisions 
indicated programmatic priorities and policy preferences. As 
with non-project-based programs, the Congress at times 
disagreed with the priorities stated in the President's budget 
request and made its priorities known in appropriations bills. 
Final federal government priorities were established in Acts 
passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed by the 
President.
    On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to 
prohibit congressional earmarks, as defined in House rule XXI. 
That definition encompasses project-level funding not requested 
by the President. Following that vote, the Committee reviewed 
the historical format of appropriations for the Corps to see if 
there was a more transparent way to highlight programmatic 
priorities without abandoning congressional oversight 
responsibilities. The fiscal year 2012 Act included a 
modification to the format used in previous years, and that 
format is continued for fiscal year 2015. As in previous years, 
the Committee lists in report tables the studies, projects, and 
activities within each account requested by the President along 
with the Committee-recommended funding level. To advance its 
programmatic priorities, the Committee has included additional 
funding for certain categories of projects. Project-specific 
allocations within these categories will be determined by the 
Corps based on further direction provided in this report.
    The Committee notes that one argument frequently made 
against congressional earmarks is that these activities are 
political decisions that divert funding to parochial concerns 
and away from national priorities. This argument assumes that 
funding decisions made within the executive branch are 
inherently objective and devoid of political influence. This 
argument and underlying assumption once again are proven false 
by the budget request for the Corps of Engineers. The fiscal 
year 2015 budget request includes projects previously funded 
only through congressional earmarks that the executive branch 
had determined were inconsistent with policy in the past. No 
identification or explanation of policy changes accompanies the 
budget request for these projects.

                  ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK

    As mentioned above, the budget request is woefully 
inadequate for meeting the critical water resources 
infrastructure needs of this nation. Numerous continuing 
studies and construction projects will be suspended or slowed, 
leaving many communities vulnerable to floods and coastal 
storms longer than necessary and hindering economic growth and 
international competitiveness. Underfunding operation and 
maintenance of existing assets results in economic 
inefficiencies and risks infrastructure failure, which can 
cause substantial economic losses. For these reasons, the 
Committee provides a total of $916,599,000 above the budget 
request within the Investigations, Construction, Mississippi 
River and Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance accounts 
for additional work that either was not included in the 
Administration's request or was inadequately budgeted. The 
executive branch retains complete discretion over project-
specific allocation decisions within the additional funds 
provided.
    A project or study shall be eligible for additional funding 
within the Investigations, Construction, and Mississippi River 
and Tributaries accounts if: (1) it has received funding, other 
than through a reprogramming, in at least one of the previous 
three fiscal years; or (2) it was previously funded and could 
reach a significant milestone or produce significant outputs in 
fiscal year 2015. None of the additional funding in any account 
may be used for any item where funding was specifically denied; 
to initiate new studies, projects, programs, or activities; to 
alter any existing cost-share requirement; or for projects in 
the Continuing Authorities Program.
    Funding associated with each category may be allocated to 
any eligible study or project, as appropriate, within that 
category; funding associated with each subcategory may be 
allocated only to eligible studies or projects, as appropriate, 
within that subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant 
to be exhaustive.
    Transparency in the Work Plan Development Process.--The 
Administration's compliance--or more accurately, lack of 
compliance--with congressional direction regarding work plans 
in previous fiscal years is troubling. Specifically, in fiscal 
year 2014, the only component of the work plan the 
Administration submitted on time was the list of projects with 
funding allocations. Three weeks later, the Administration 
submitted a list of general factors and management controls 
considered when making allocation decisions, but this list 
clearly was not responsive to congressional direction to 
develop ratings systems for use in allocating additional 
funding to specific projects. As of the writing of this report, 
the Committee is still waiting for the remaining components of 
the fiscal year 2014 work plan, including a summary of the work 
to be accomplished with each funding allocation and the 
information on eligible projects that were not funded. The 
order in which information has been submitted suggests that the 
Administration made project-specific funding decisions and only 
then half-heartedly attempted to justify those decisions. Under 
a truly transparent and performance-based process, the order of 
events would be reversed--the necessary analytical tools would 
be developed first and then projects would be evaluated using 
those tools in order to arrive at project-specific funding 
allocations.
    The Committee expects considerable improvement in the 
quality and detail of information provided in fiscal year 2015 
regarding the allocation of these additional funds. To assist 
the Administration in improving the transparency of the 
process, the Committee reiterates its direction to the Corps to 
develop ratings systems for use in evaluating projects for 
allocation of the additional funding provided in this Act. 
These evaluation systems may be, but are not required to be, 
individualized for each account or for each category of 
projects to be funded. The Corps retains complete control over 
the methodology of these ratings systems, but shall consider 
giving priority to the factors discussed under the heading 
``Additional Funding for Ongoing Work'' within each relevant 
account. Each study or project eligible to receive additional 
funds shall be evaluated under the applicable ratings system; a 
study or project may not be excluded from evaluation under 
these ratings systems for being ``inconsistent with 
Administration policy.''
    Work Plan.--The fiscal year 2015 work plan shall be 
submitted in two phases. First, not later than 21 days after 
enactment of this Act, the Corps shall provide to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate a detailed description of the ratings system(s) 
developed and used to evaluate studies and projects within each 
account, including the weighting given to each factor or 
criterion if multiple factors or criteria are used. This phase 
shall not include any results of project-specific evaluations, 
but only information on the methodology of the ratings 
system(s). To ensure compliance with this directive in fiscal 
year 2015, the Corps shall not allocate additional funds to any 
study or project nor issue a work allowance for any study or 
project receiving funding under this Act until the Committees 
provide written acknowledgement of the Corps' compliance with 
this directive. To be clear, the Committee shall not attempt to 
reject, approve, or modify the ratings system(s) submitted, but 
rather simply shall indicate that the Corps has provided a 
sufficiently-detailed description to represent a transparent 
allocation process.
    Second, not earlier than 21 days and not later than 60 days 
after the Committees provide written acknowledgement of receipt 
of phase one of the work plan, the Corps shall provide to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate phase two of the work plan, including the 
following information:
          (1) Delineation of how these funds are to be 
        allocated;
          (2) A summary of the work to be accomplished with 
        each allocation, including phase of work, as 
        appropriate;
          (3) The results of each project-specific evaluation 
        under the rating system(s); and
          (4) A list of all studies and projects that were 
        considered eligible for funding but did not receive 
        funding, including:
                  a. an explanation of whether each study or 
                project could have used funds in fiscal year 
                2015,
                  b. whether the study or project was rated as 
                highly or more highly than other studies or 
                projects that did receive funding, and
                  c. the specific reasons each study or project 
                was considered as being less competitive for an 
                allocation of funds.
    For any study or project excluded from funding for being 
``inconsistent with administration policy,'' the work plan 
shall include a detailed explanation of why such study or 
project is inconsistent with administration policy.
    Full Allocation of Funds.--The Committee has provided 
additional funding in amounts consistent with estimates of 
additional capability for fiscal year 2015 that were provided 
by the Corps. As such, the Committee expects the Corps to 
allocate in the work plan all additional funds provided. If 
during development of the work plan, however, the Corps 
determines that capability estimates have changed such that not 
all funding can be obligated within the fiscal year, the Corps 
is directed to review capability estimates at least every other 
month and to allocate funds to studies and projects in 
accordance with the same general process as the initial work 
plan. The Corps shall not hold back funds for later allocation 
if there are any studies or projects that, during development 
of the initial work plan, are expected to be able to obligate 
the funds within the fiscal year.

                               ASIAN CARP

    The Committee remains concerned by the threat of aquatic 
nuisance species to the nation's water bodies and recognizes 
the critical role of the Army Corps of Engineers in preventing, 
controlling, and managing the threat of Asian carp. The 
Committee notes that the Corps cooperates with other federal, 
state, and local government agencies through the Asian Carp 
Regional Coordinating Committee to execute a comprehensive 
strategy to deal with Asian carp. The Water Resources Reform 
and Development Act of 2014 included permanent authority for 
the Corps to implement certain actions to prevent aquatic 
nuisance species from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of 
any hydrologic connection between the Great Lakes and the 
Mississippi River Basin. Therefore, the recommendation does not 
include the annual provision included in previous years.

               CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING

    To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2015 
is consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the 
movement of funds, and to improve overall budget execution, the 
bill carries a legislative provision outlining the 
circumstances under which the Corps of Engineers may reprogram 
funds.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $5,492,499,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers, $25,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $959,499,000 
above the budget request. The recommendation does not include 
the rescission of $28,000,000 of prior-year appropriations 
proposed in the budget request.
    A table summarizing the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
appropriation, the fiscal year 2015 budget request, and the 
Committee-recommended levels is provided below:

                                             (Dollars in thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2014         FY 2015
                             Account                                  enacted         request       Cmte. rec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations..................................................        $125,000         $80,000        $115,000
Construction....................................................       1,656,000       1,125,000       1,704,499
Mississippi River and tributaries...............................         307,000         245,000         260,000
Operation and maintenance.......................................       2,861,000       2,600,000       2,905,000
Regulatory program..............................................         200,000         200,000         200,000
FUSRAP..........................................................         103,499         100,000         100,000
Flood control and coastal emergencies...........................          28,000          28,000          28,000
Expenses........................................................         182,000         178,000         178,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works...           5,000           5,000           2,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        TOTAL, Program Level....................................       5,467,499       4,561,000       5,492,499
Rescission......................................................           - - -         -28,000           - - -
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        NET APPROPRIATION, Corps of Engineers--Civil............       5,467,499       4,533,000       5,492,499
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             INVESTIGATIONS

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $125,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        80,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       115,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       -10,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       +35,000,000
 

    This appropriation funds studies to determine the need for, 
the engineering and economic feasibility of, and the 
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and 
related land resource problems; preconstruction engineering and 
design; data collection; interagency coordination; and 
research.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $115,000,000, 
$10,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $35,000,000 above the 
budget request.
    The budget request for this account and the approved 
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:


    Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee notes 
that funding for Savannah Harbor Expansion, GA, is provided in 
the Construction account, as in previous years.
    Passaic River Main Stem, New Jersey.--The Committee is very 
concerned with the Corps' management of the Passaic River Main 
Stem study to date. This region experienced significant 
flooding from Hurricane Irene in 2011. In fact, the President 
and other Administration officials traveled to the area to 
promise federal assistance. Yet progress on this study has been 
hampered by a breakdown in coordination among the three levels 
of the organization (district, division, and headquarters), 
even though coordination is one of the three tenets of the 
Corps' new 3x3x3 planning framework. The Committee directs the 
Corps to be prepared to brief the Committee not later than 14 
days after enactment of this Act on a detailed plan and 
schedule for this study.
    Fiscal Year 2014 New Starts.--As explained in the Title I 
front matter, the budget request includes funding for four 
environmental restoration studies initiated in fiscal year 2014 
even though only three new starts were authorized. The 
recommendation does not include funding for any of these four 
studies individually, but rather includes a line item under 
``Remaining Items'' with funding to be allocated to three of 
these studies. The Corps retains complete discretion over which 
three studies to continue funding. The Administration shall not 
combine studies or in any other way attempt to continue funding 
in fiscal year 2015 for all four studies included in the budget 
request. No further work shall be done on the fourth study 
until such future time as it is selected as a new start.
    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall 
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in 
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the 
Title I front matter of this report. While this additional 
funding is shown in the feasibility column, the Corps should 
use these funds in recon, feasibility, and PED, as applicable. 
When developing the rating system(s) for use in allocating 
additional funds under this account, the Corps shall consider 
giving priority to completing or accelerating ongoing studies 
that: (1) will enhance the nation's economic development, job 
growth, and international competitiveness; (2) are for projects 
located in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters; 
or (3) are for projects to address legal requirements. The 
executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology 
of the ratings system(s) and project-specific allocation 
decisions within the additional funds provided.
    Research and Development.--The Committee continues to 
support the Corps' efforts to significantly improve the safety, 
efficiency, reliability, and cost of performing inspections of 
critical and aging infrastructure. The Committee is aware that 
innovative and technologically advanced methods of inspection 
that would assist in performing this vital mission, such as 
non-destructive testing (NDT) and non-destructive evaluation 
(NDE) techniques for the inspection of trunnion rods on dams, 
are being developed collaboratively by the Corps and the 
private sector. In order to accelerate the delivery and 
deployment of innovative technologies for infrastructure 
inspection, the Committee urges the Corps to prioritize funding 
for the validation of proven, high-payoff, innovative practices 
and technologies at the national level.
    Water Resources Priorities Study.--No funding is included 
for this new item.

                              CONSTRUCTION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................    $1,656,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................     1,125,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................     1,704,499,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       +48,499,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................      +579,499,000
 

    This appropriation funds construction, major 
rehabilitation, and related activities for water resource 
projects whose principal purpose is to provide commercial 
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, or aquatic 
ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. Portions of this 
account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and 
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$1,704,499,000, $48,499,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$579,499,000 above the budget request.
    The budget request for this account and the approved 
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:


    Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The budget request for 
this item that was proposed in the Investigations account has 
been moved to this account where it has been funded since it 
received a new construction start in fiscal year 2009. As such, 
the Corps is directed to consider the project an ongoing 
construction project. Additionally, in light of the project's 
inclusion in the recently enacted WRRDA and the fact that the 
non-federal sponsor has significant funding available to begin 
work on its project responsibilities, the Committee anticipates 
the Corps will execute a project partnership agreement with the 
non-federal sponsor before the end of fiscal year 2014. If an 
agreement has not been signed by the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Corps shall report to the Committees on Appropriations 
of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 
14 days after enactment of this Act regarding the specific 
reasons for the delay, as well as a schedule for executing the 
agreement. Thereafter, the Corps shall provide weekly updates 
until such time as the agreement is executed.
    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall 
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in 
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the 
Title I front matter of this report. Of the additional funds 
provided in this account, the Corps shall allocate not less 
than $12,450,000 to projects with riverfront development 
components. Of the additional funds provided in this account 
for flood and storm damage reduction and flood control, the 
Corps shall allocate not less than $18,000,000 to additional 
nonstructural flood control projects. When developing the 
rating system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under 
this account, the Corps shall consider the following:
          (1) benefits of the funded work to the national 
        economy;
          (2) extent to which the work will enhance national, 
        regional, or local economic development;
          (3) number of jobs created directly by the funded 
        activity;
          (4) ability to obligate the funds allocated within 
        the fiscal year, including consideration of the ability 
        of the non-federal sponsor to provide any required 
        cost-share;
          (5) ability to complete the project, separable 
        element, project phase, or useful increment of work 
        with the funds allocated;
          (6) for flood and storm damage reduction projects,
                  -- the population, economic activity, or 
                public infrastructure at risk, as appropriate; 
                and
                  -- the severity of risk of flooding or the 
                frequency with which an area has experienced 
                flooding;
          (7) for navigation projects, the number of jobs or 
        level of economic activity to be supported by 
        completion of the project, separable element, project 
        phase, or useful increment of work; and
          (8) for Inland Waterways Trust Fund projects, the 
        economic impact on the local, regional, and national 
        economy if the project is not funded, as well as useful 
        increments of work that can be completed within the 
        funding provided in this line item.

The executive branch retains complete discretion over 
methodology of the ratings system(s) and project-specific 
allocation decisions within the additional funds provided.
    Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).--The Committee 
continues to support all sections of the Continuing Authorities 
Program. Funding is provided for eight CAP sections at a total 
of $56,800,000, an increase of $46,800,000 above the budget 
request, which proposed funding for only five sections. This 
program provides a useful tool for the Corps to undertake small 
localized projects without the lengthy study and authorization 
process typical of most larger Corps projects. The management 
of the Continuing Authorities Program should continue 
consistent with direction provided in fiscal year 2014. This 
direction is restated here for convenience.
    For each CAP section, available funds shall be allocated 
utilizing this sequence of steps until the funds are exhausted:
          -- capability-level funds for ongoing projects that 
        have executed cost-sharing agreements for the 
        applicable phase;
          -- capability-level funds for projects that are ready 
        for execution of new cost-sharing agreements for the 
        applicable phase and for which Corps headquarters 
        authorizes execution of the agreements;
          -- funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other 
        projects previously funded for the applicable phase but 
        not ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements; 
        and
          -- funds as permitted by Corps policies, for projects 
        not previously funded for the applicable phase.
    Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate 
Field Operating Agency (FOA) for projects requested by that 
FOA. If the FOA finds that the study/project for which funds 
were requested cannot go forward, the funds are to be returned 
to the Corps' headquarters to be reallocated based on the 
nationwide priority listing. In no case should the FOA retain 
these funds for use on a different project than the one for 
which the funds were requested without the explicit approval of 
the Corps' headquarters.
    Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for 
each CAP section, funds shall be allocated to the projects in 
that section that rank high according to the following factors: 
high overall performance based on outputs; high percent 
fiscally complete; and high unobligated carry-in. Section 14 
funds shall be allocated to the projects that address the most 
significant risks and adverse consequences, irrespective of 
phase or previous funding history.
    The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending 
and terminating inactive projects. Suspended projects shall not 
be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in 
writing its support for the project and establishes its 
willingness and capability to execute its project 
responsibilities.
    In order to provide a mix of studies, design, and 
construction within each CAP section, the Corps is directed to 
divide the funding generally 80/20 between the Design and 
Implementation and the Feasibility phases within each 
authority. The Chief of Engineers shall provide a report to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate not later than 30 days after enactment of this 
Act detailing how funds will be distributed to the individual 
items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal year. The 
Chief shall also provide an annual report at the end of each 
fiscal year detailing the progress made on the backlog of 
projects. The report should include the completions and 
terminations as well as progress of ongoing work.
    The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects 
in all sections as funding allows. New projects may be 
initiated after an assessment is made that such projects can be 
funded over time based on historical averages of the 
appropriation for that section and after prior approval by the 
Committees on Appropriations.

                   MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $307,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       245,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       260,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       -47,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       +15,000,000
 

    This appropriation funds planning, construction, and 
operation and maintenance activities associated with projects 
to reduce flood damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial 
valley below Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $260,000,000, 
$47,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $15,000,000 above the 
budget request.
    The budget request for this account and the approved 
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:


    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall 
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in 
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the 
Title I front matter of this report. While this additional 
funding is shown under remaining items, the Corps should use 
these funds in investigations, construction, and operation and 
maintenance, as applicable. When developing the rating 
system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under this 
account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to completing 
or accelerating ongoing work that (1) will enhance the region 
and nation's economic development, job growth, and 
international competitiveness; or (2) is for projects located 
in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. The 
executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology 
of the ratings system(s) and project-specific allocation 
decisions within the additional funds provided.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................    $2,861,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................     2,600,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................     2,905,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       +44,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................      +305,000,000
 

    This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and 
related activities at water resource projects the Corps 
operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of 
dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other 
facilities as authorized in various River and Harbor, Flood 
Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. Related 
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of 
completed projects, removal of sunken vessels, and the 
collection of domestic, waterborne commerce statistics. 
Portions of this account are financed through the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$2,905,000,000, $44,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$305,000,000 above the budget request.
    The budget request for this account and the approved 
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:


    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall 
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in 
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the 
Title I front matter of this report. When developing the rating 
system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under this 
account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to the 
following:
          (1) ability to complete ongoing work maintaining 
        authorized depths and widths of harbors and shipping 
        channels, including where contaminated sediments are 
        present;
          (2) ability to address critical maintenance backlog;
          (3) presence of the U.S. Coast Guard;
          (4) extent to which the work will enhance national, 
        regional, or local economic development, including 
        domestic manufacturing capacity;
          (5) extent to which the work will promote job growth 
        or international competitiveness;
          (6) number of jobs created directly by the funded 
        activity;
          (7) ability to obligate the funds allocated within 
        the fiscal year;
          (8) ability to complete the project, separable 
        element, project phase, or useful increment of work 
        within the funds allocated;
          (9) the risk of imminent failure or closure of the 
        facility; and
          (10) for harbor maintenance activities,
                  --total tonnage handled;
                  --total exports;
                  --total imports;
                  --dollar value of cargo handled;
                  -- energy infrastructure and national 
                security needs served;
                  --designation as strategic seaports;
                  --lack of alternative means of freight 
                movement;
                  --savings over alternative means of freight 
                movement.

The executive branch retains complete discretion over 
methodology of the ratings system(s) and project-specific 
allocation decisions within the additional funds provided.
    Small, Remote, or Subsistence Navigation.--Concerns persist 
that the Administration's criteria for navigation maintenance 
do not allow small, remote, or subsistence harbors and 
waterways to properly compete for scarce navigation maintenance 
funds. The Committee directs the Corps to provide an update to 
the Committee on its previous request that the Corps review the 
criteria used for determining which navigation projects are 
funded in order to develop a reasonable and equitable 
allocation for small, remote, or subsistence harbors and 
waterways under this account.
    Hopper Dredges.--The Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 directed the Secretary to initiate a program to increase 
the use of private industry hopper dredges for the construction 
and maintenance of federal navigation channels and to develop 
and implement procedures to ensure that private industry hopper 
dredge capacity is available to meet both routine and time-
sensitive dredging needs. The Committee notes that this 
``industry first'' policy has worked well, with private 
industry increasing capacity by commissioning new hopper 
dredges and with the Corps instituting ``raise the flag'' 
procedures for time-sensitive situations. The Committee 
encourages the Corps to maintain the federal commitment to the 
``industry first'' policy, including by scheduling the federal 
hopper dredges in ready reserve status for only the number of 
routine testing days necessary to ensure the ability of the 
vessel to perform urgent and emergency work.
    Lower Snake River Project.--The Committee is aware that the 
Walla Walla District and certain landowners adjacent to the 
project have been working together to resolve an issue 
regarding the use of Corps lands. The Committee encourages the 
Corps and the landowners to continue exploring all options, 
including potential land exchanges as necessary, to resolve 
this issue. The Committee directs the Corps to maintain the 
status quo use of these lands as long as good-faith efforts are 
being made to find resolution. The Corps shall provide to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate not later than 180 days after enactment of this 
Act an update on the status of the situation, including any 
actions taken or planned as well as any legislative authority 
that may be needed to resolve the situation.
    Hydrilla.--Hydrilla is a submersed aquatic plant native to 
Asia that is now a serious nuisance plant in the United States. 
The Committee understands the challenges posed by the spread of 
hydrilla and supports ongoing work by the Corps to contain the 
spread of and treat the invasive species at existing Corps 
projects, including Walter F. George Lake in Alabama, Lake 
Seminole in Georgia, and the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway in 
Mississippi.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       200,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       200,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    This appropriation provides funds to administer laws 
pertaining to the regulation of activities affecting U.S. 
waters, including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and 
Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act, and the 
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. 
Appropriated funds are used to review and process permit 
applications, ensure compliance on permitted sites, protect 
important aquatic resources, and support watershed planning 
efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation with 
states and local communities.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000, 
the same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.
    In fiscal year 2014, the Committee raised two issues in 
which the Corps in recent years has changed its interpretation 
of Clean Water Act requirements. Congress rejected both new 
interpretations. Unfortunately, the Committee continues to hear 
concerns on these issues, including communications from the 
Corps expressing no intention to adhere to congressional 
direction. The Committee directs the Corps to ensure that all 
field offices adhere in all instances to the interpretations 
directed by the Congress. The fiscal year 2014 direction is 
repeated here for emphasis and clarity.
    The Committee is aware of at least two recent instances in 
which local economic development organizations have applied for 
permits to prepare sites to attract new economic activity but 
the Corps has denied or otherwise frustrated those efforts. 
Although the local organizations have established precedent by 
providing several examples of where similar applications were 
approved, the Corps now claims its regulations require the 
identification of a specified end-user of a proposed 
development so it can review final design plans and other exact 
specifications of the proposed development in order to issue a 
permit. The Committee strongly rejects this new interpretation 
of Clean Water Act requirements. The Corps is not a local land-
use planning agency, and the Clean Water Act provides neither 
the directive nor the authority for the Corps to assume such 
responsibilities. The Committee encourages the Corps to work 
with these permit applicants, and any others with similar 
applications, to reach a better balance between allowing 
desperately needed economic development while still 
safeguarding important environmental resources.
    In 1977, Congress made a deliberate policy choice to exempt 
ordinary farming, silviculture, ranching, and mining related 
activities from the requirements to obtain Clean Water Act 
permits when undertaken as normal activities to prepare and 
maintain land, roads, ponds, or ditches. A ``recapture 
provision'' also was included to provide reasonable limits on 
the scope of these statutory exemptions, but not to nullify the 
exemptions. Concerns have been raised that in recent years the 
Corps has changed its interpretation of these provisions to 
significantly reduce the application of the statutory 
exemptions. The Corps is directed to ensure that the original 
balance intended by statute is implemented by all field 
offices.
    Public Safety Projects.--The Committee continues to hear of 
public safety infrastructure projects that have been delayed 
due to excessive and repeated reviews. Many communities depend 
on these projects to protect residents from natural disasters. 
Considering the risk to life and other damages that these 
disasters inflict upon communities, it is in the public 
interest to have local governments mitigate for such harm. 
Therefore, the Committee encourages the Corps to keep in mind 
the public safety aspects of a project when considering permit 
applications and to pursue ways to shorten review times, 
including by performing reviews concurrently and eliminating 
duplicative reviews to the maximum extent practicable.

        FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $103,499,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       100,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       100,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -3,499,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level 
radioactive materials and mixed wastes located at sites 
contaminated as a result of the nation's early efforts to 
develop atomic weapons.
    The Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of 
Energy to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In 
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP 
sites where the Department had not completed cleanup. The 
Committee did not transfer to the Corps ownership of and 
accountability for real property interests, which remain with 
the Department. The Committee expects the Department to 
continue to provide its institutional knowledge and expertise 
to ensure the success of this program and to serve the nation 
and the affected communities.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000, 
$3,499,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the request. 
The Committee continues to support the prioritization of sites, 
especially those that are nearing completion. Within the funds 
provided in accordance with the budget request, the Corps is 
directed to complete the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 
Study of the former Sylvania nuclear fuel site at Hicksville, 
New York, and, as appropriate, to proceed expeditiously to a 
Record of Decision and initiation of any necessary remediation 
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        28,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        28,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    This appropriation funds planning, training, and other 
measures that ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond to 
floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and to support 
emergency operations in response to such natural disasters, 
including advance measures, flood fighting, emergency 
operations, the provision of potable water on an emergency 
basis, and the repair of certain flood and storm damage 
reduction projects.
    The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for this account, the 
same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.

                                EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $182,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       178,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       178,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -4,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    This appropriation funds the executive direction and 
management of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the 
Division Offices, and certain research and statistical 
functions of the Corps of Engineers.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $178,000,000, 
$4,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget 
request.
    Enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act 
of 2014 (WRRDA) provides the Corps with many new and amended 
authorities and directives for civil works projects, programs, 
and activities, including the Water Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA). The Committee believes these 
new authorities will require specific appropriations prior to 
implementation, but has not had sufficient time to evaluate 
each provision for funding in fiscal year 2015. In the 
meantime, the Corps is directed to provide the Committee with 
notification prior to obligating funds for any provision not 
requiring specific appropriations, as well as monthly updates 
on the status of implementation guidance documents in draft and 
final form. Additionally, the Corps is directed to develop and 
submit to the Committee a detailed plan for how the WIFIA 
provisions, if funded, would be implemented. This plan shall 
discuss all aspects of implementation, including which types of 
projects would be eligible or prioritized; criteria for 
selecting specific projects for financing; the steps and 
general schedule of a potential application process; agency 
personnel and expertise needs; expected administrative costs; 
and measures necessary to ensure appropriate protections of 
federal tax dollars. Recognizing that the Corps has no prior 
experience with administering a loan or loan guarantee program, 
the Committee directs the Corps to consult with the Government 
Accountability Office and other federal agencies with similar 
authorities in order to avoid the problems that have occurred 
in other federal loan and loan guarantee programs.
    Ability To Pay Rule.--The Committee recognizes that Indian 
tribes do not always have the ability to pay the non-federal 
portion of costs for water resources development projects on 
Tribal land. Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000 established the Tribal Partnership Program and directed 
that the cost-share be subject to the non-federal interest's 
ability to pay to be determined by the Secretary in accordance 
with procedures established by the Secretary. The Corps then 
drafted a rule, but to date the rule has not been finalized. 
The Committee encourages the Corps to finalize an ability to 
pay rule. Unless a rule has been finalized, the Committee 
directs the Corps to submit to the Committees on Appropriations 
of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 
90 days after enactment of this Act an explanation of why the 
ability to pay rule has not yet been finalized and a schedule 
for finalizing the rule.

     OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................        $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................         5,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................         2,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -3,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................        -3,000,000
 

    The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 
oversees the Civil Works budget and policy, whereas the Corps' 
executive direction and management of the Civil Works program 
are funded from the Expenses account.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000, 
$3,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.
    The Committee is concerned that the Administration has not 
been taking congressional direction seriously. As discussed 
earlier in this report, the Administration has missed numerous 
deadlines and provided insufficient detail in response to other 
requests for information included in the fiscal year 2014 Act. 
The Committee also has been dissatisfied with the delays and 
lack of substance in providing information requested during 
hearings and other communications, including information 
related to the regulatory program. For these reasons, the 
recommendation reduces funding for this account. The Assistant 
Secretary would be well-served to develop and implement a plan 
for improving responsiveness to the Committee's concerns.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The bill continues a provision that prohibits the 
obligation or expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of 
funds in this title except in certain circumstances.
    The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds 
in this Act to carry out any contract that commits funds beyond 
the amounts appropriated for that program, project, or 
activity.
    The bill continues a provision prohibiting the award of 
continuing contracts for any project for which funds are 
derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund until such time as 
a long-term mechanism to enhance revenues sufficient to meet 
the cost-sharing requirements is enacted.
    The bill continues a provision authorizing the transfer of 
funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate for 
fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers projects.
    The bill makes permanent a provision prohibiting funds from 
being used to develop or implement changes to certain 
definitions for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
    The bill makes permanent a provision prohibiting funds from 
being used to implement revised guidance on determining 
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
    The bill contains a provision allowing the possession of 
firearms at water resources development projects under certain 
circumstances.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


                          Central Utah Project


                CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................        $8,725,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................         7,300,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................         9,874,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        +1,149,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................        +2,574,000
 
The budget requests the Central Utah Project as part of the Bureau of
  Reclamation. For purposes of comparison, the budget request is shown
  here.

    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central 
Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; 
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these 
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and 
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in 
that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for 
carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and 
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    The fiscal year 2015 budget request again proposes to 
repeal the statutory prohibition on delegation of 
responsibility and put oversight of the Central Utah Project 
under the Bureau of Reclamation. The Committee again rejects 
this proposal.
    The Committee recommendation includes a total of $9,874,000 
for the Central Utah Project Completion Account, which includes 
$7,574,000 for Central Utah Project construction, $1,000,000 
for transfer to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 
and Conservation Commission, and $1,300,000 for necessary 
expenses of the Secretary of the Interior. This appropriation 
is $1,149,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $2,574,000 above the 
budget request.

                         Bureau of Reclamation


                              INTRODUCTION

    The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is 
to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in 
an environmentally and economically sound manner in the 
interest of the American public. Since its establishment by the 
Reclamation Act of 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has 
developed water supply facilities that have contributed to 
sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life in 
the western states. Lands and communities served by Reclamation 
projects have been developed to meet agricultural, tribal, 
urban, and industrial needs. Reclamation continues to develop 
authorized facilities to store and convey new water supplies 
and is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17 
western states. Reclamation maintains 337 reservoirs with the 
capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of water.
    As Reclamation's large impoundments and appurtenant 
facilities reach their design life, the projected cost of 
operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating Reclamation 
infrastructure continues to grow, yet Reclamation has not 
budgeted funding sufficient to implement a comprehensive 
program to reduce its maintenance backlog. At the same time, 
Reclamation is increasingly relied upon to provide water supply 
to federally-recognized Indian tribes through water 
settlements, rural communities through its Title I Rural Water 
Program, and municipalities through its Title XVI Water 
Reclamation and Reuse Program. Balancing these competing 
priorities will be challenging and requires active 
participation and leadership on the part of Reclamation and its 
technical staff.

                           DROUGHT CONDITIONS

    Adding even greater challenges and consequences to 
Reclamation's operational decisions, much of the Western United 
States has been experiencing harsh drought conditions over the 
past year or more. As of May 15, the entire State of California 
was in severe, extreme, or exceptional drought, with the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate 
Prediction Center expecting conditions to at least persist if 
not intensify through midsummer. The first half of water year 
2014 (October 2013-March 2014) was the third-driest in history 
statewide, behind only the periods ending in 1977 and 1924.
    The severity of the current drought coupled with 
Reclamation's Central Valley Project operational decisions have 
serious consequences for a wide variety of reasons. Continued 
high temperatures are expected and could pose a risk of rapid 
depletion of reservoir storage, which stood at only 69 percent 
of average in mid-May. For the first time, Reclamation has 
announced releases from Friant Dam to address contractual 
obligations with the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors. 
Even with this historic action, these contractors and other 
contractors whose water supply is based on senior water rights 
have been allocated 75 percent or less of their contract 
supply. Many other agricultural water service contractors have 
been allocated no water at all. Considering the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service 2012 
state report estimated the market value of products from 
California farms as approaching $45 billion annually, the 
economic consequences of these allocations are disastrous. Even 
Municipal and Industrial water service contractors have been 
allocated only 50 percent of their historic use, leading to 
water use restrictions in many communities.
    The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request does not prioritize funding for those activities that 
will respond directly to the severity of drought conditions in 
California and other Reclamation states, including potential 
long-term solutions that can eliminate or mitigate drought's 
impacts. Discussed most prominently in the budget justification 
materials are various components of the WaterSMART program, 
including two new programs related to comprehensive drought 
planning and resilient infrastructure. Unfortunately, 
Reclamation has provided very little detailed explanation of 
what these programs will accomplish and how they differ from 
existing programs.

      FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Bureau of 
Reclamation totals $1,042,995,000. After accounting for 
proposed changes in account structure, the request for 
activities funded under the Bureau of Reclamation in recent 
years is $1,035,695,000. The Committee recommendation totals 
$1,003,695,000, $100,678,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$32,000,000 below the adjusted budget request.
    A table summarizing the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
appropriation, the fiscal year 2015 budget request, and the 
Committee recommendation is provided below.

 
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2014      FY 2015
             Account                 enacted      request     Cmte rec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Related Resources......     $954,085     $760,700     $856,351
Central Valley Project                  53,288       56,995       56,995
 Restoration Fund................
California Bay-Delta Restoration.       37,000       37,000       37,000
Policy and Administration........       60,000       59,500       53,849
Indian Water Rights Settlements..        - - -       90,000        - - -
San Joaquin River Restoration            - - -       32,000        - - -
 Fund............................
Central Utah Project Completion..        - - -        7,300        - - -
                                  --------------------------------------
    TOTAL, Bureau of Reclamation.    1,104,373    1,043,495    1,004,195
Rescission.......................        - - -         -500         -500
                                  --------------------------------------
    NET APPROPRIATION, Bureau of     1,104,373    1,042,995    1,003,695
     Reclamation.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $954,085,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       760,700,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       856,351,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       -97,734,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       +95,651,000
 

    The Water and Related Resources account supports the 
development, construction, management, and restoration of water 
and related natural resources in the 17 western states. The 
account includes funds for operating and maintaining existing 
facilities to obtain the greatest overall levels of benefits, 
to protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to 
improve the use of water and related natural resources.
    For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends 
$856,351,000, $97,734,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$95,651,000 above the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes in this account certain Indian water 
rights settlements proposed for funding under a separate 
account in the President's budget request. No funding is 
included for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, which the 
President's request also proposed as a new separate account. 
Adjusted for this change in account structure, the 
recommendation is $26,349,000 below the budget request.
    The budget request for this account and the approved 
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:


    San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.--The budget request 
again proposes an account separate from the Water and Related 
Resources account for discretionary funding of San Joaquin 
River Restoration activities. As in past years, the Committee 
includes this line item within the Water and Related Resources 
account, although no funding is provided.
    Indian Water Rights Settlements.--The budget request again 
proposes a new appropriations account for certain Indian water 
rights settlements. As in prior fiscal years, however, the 
Committee includes funding for these settlements in the Water 
and Related Resources account.
    Central Valley Project Operation and Maintenance Rates.--
The Central Valley Project is operationally and financially 
integrated, meaning construction and operation and maintenance 
costs are pooled across the system and allocated accordingly. 
The Committee strongly supports this model. During 
extraordinarily severe drought years--such as the current 
drought--in which very little water is delivered to Central 
Valley Project water contractors, however, this approach can 
lead to disproportionate operation and maintenance rates for 
the contractors that receive very little of their allocated 
water. Reclamation is encouraged to review its authorities to 
see if steps can be taken to help alleviate the impacts of 
these operation and maintenance rates during the current 
drought.
    Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.--As part of its Dam 
Safety Program, Reclamation is working on a Corrective Action 
Alternatives Study (CAS) for Scoggins Dam, the main feature of 
the Tualatin Project. Working with local stakeholders, 
Reclamation is evaluating how water supply objectives, such as 
increased storage, may be coordinated with CAS implementation. 
The Committee supports such integrated efforts and directs 
Reclamation to submit legislative language to the appropriate 
congressional committees as soon as it becomes clear such 
authorization is necessary and advisable.
    Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project.--The 
Committee is aware of the Integrated Plan that has been 
developed by the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project 
Working Group, including the Bureau of Reclamation, to address 
water storage and water supply needs for agriculture, fish, and 
municipalities within the Yakima River Basin in Central 
Washington. The Committee is supportive of the Plan and 
encourages the Bureau to move forward on implementing 
authorized components of the Plan. The State of Washington has 
made significant investments in the land acquisition components 
of the Integrated Plan. Therefore, instead of using the 
proposed federal Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project 
funding for land and water acquisition, Reclamation should use 
these dollars for additional investments in Integrated Plan 
water storage and supply reliability activities.
    WaterSMART Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse 
Projects.--The Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI Water 
Reclamation and Reuse program is intended to help ensure the 
reliability of water supplies throughout the West. The 
Committee continues to hear from advocates of regional-scale 
projects. The Committee notes that Reclamation adjusted the 
parameters of its most recent funding opportunity to address 
these suggestions. Reclamation is encouraged to continue 
periodic reviews of this program to ensure the most effective 
results.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $53,288,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        56,995,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        56,995,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        +3,707,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    This fund was established to carry out the provisions of 
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and to provide 
funding for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, 
and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the 
Central Valley area of California. Resources are derived from 
donations, revenues from voluntary water transfers and tiered 
water pricing, and Friant Division surcharges. The account also 
is financed through additional mitigation and restoration 
payments collected on an annual basis from project 
beneficiaries.
    For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends $56,995,000, 
$3,707,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget 
request. The Committee notes that the increase for this account 
in the budget request and recommendation is based on a three-
year rolling average of collections, in accordance with the 
authorizing statute.

                    CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $37,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        37,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        37,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The California Bay-Delta Restoration account funds the 
federal share of water supply and reliability improvements, 
ecosystem improvements, and other activities being developed 
for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds 
by a state and federal partnership (CALFED). Federal 
participation in this program was initially authorized in the 
California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act 
enacted in 1996.
    For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends $37,000,000, 
the same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.
    The recommendation includes funding consistent with the 
budget request for four feasibility studies associated with the 
water storage projects identified in section 103(d)(1) of the 
Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act 
(Public Law 108-361). According to information received from 
Reclamation, no additional funding for these studies could be 
used in fiscal year 2015. The Committee notes that one study is 
expected to be completed by December 2014, another study by 
July 2015, and the schedules for the remaining two studies are 
uncertain subject to further funding participation by the non-
federal sponsor. Reclamation is strongly encouraged to take 
necessary steps, including use of the shortest applicable 
process under the National Environmental Policy Act, to meet 
the established schedules.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        59,500,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        53,849,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -6,151,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................        -5,651,000
 

    The Policy and Administration account provides for the 
executive direction and management of all Reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's office in 
Washington, D.C.; the Technical Service Center in Denver, 
Colorado; and, in five regional offices. The Denver and 
regional offices charge individual projects or activities for 
direct beneficial services and related administrative and 
technical costs. These charges are covered under other 
appropriations. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends 
$53,849,000, $6,151,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $5,651,000 
below the budget request.
    This reduction in funding is a direct result of 
Reclamation's lack of responsiveness to congressional and 
statutory direction and to Committee information requests. The 
fiscal year 2012 joint explanatory statement provided direction 
regarding buried metallic water pipe. Reclamation chose to 
implement only certain pieces of that direction, so the fiscal 
year 2013 House report (House Report 112-462) and the fiscal 
year 2014 Act and explanatory statement included additional 
direction to Reclamation on this topic. The fiscal year 2014 
language could not have been clearer that the status quo was 
unacceptable. Yet the status quo is exactly what was described 
in the report submitted by Reclamation.
    Lengthy response times and incomplete answers to Committee 
requests also have been concerns over the past few years. It 
often takes weeks for Reclamation to respond to what should be 
simple information requests. The lack of timely and pertinent 
information weakens the Committee's ability to provide 
appropriate oversight. The Committee would like to believe it 
is not Reclamation's intent to slow delivery of information to 
the Committee to avoid rigorous oversight, but rather is a 
problem easier to solve, such as being a result of an overly 
bureaucratic clearance process or similar administrative issue. 
The Committee welcomes a discussion with Reclamation on ways to 
improve the Committee's access to information.
    The Committee remains concerned about the limited 
information regarding activities included in the annual budget 
request that is provided to the Committee. Particularly as new, 
large, and costly projects and programs are proposed for 
initiation, Reclamation must provide detailed analysis and 
explanation of how these commitments will be met in the future 
and the impacts to ongoing projects and programs. Without an 
understanding of out-year funding needs of activities in the 
budget request, for example, it is difficult for the Committee 
to evaluate the budget proposal and the prioritization of 
actions it represents. Reclamation is directed to work with the 
Committee to develop a mutually acceptable scope of information 
to be included in, or concurrent with, the standard budget 
justification materials provided to the Congress.
    The Committee previously has directed the Administration to 
produce a five-year plan that serves the public interest by 
providing visibility into Reclamation's future plans and 
spending. To date, Reclamation has failed to provide that plan 
to the Committee. The Committee once again directs the 
Administration to fulfill the Committee's request to provide an 
adequate and useful five-year plan.
    The Committee expects that the five-year plan will include 
the following: (1) a funding scenario that reflects the 
Administration's expenditure ceilings, including inflation for 
the out-years; (2) a list of active projects, as defined by a 
project receiving funding in the previous three years, for 
which funding is not proposed in the plan; (3) a full 
accounting of all rural water, Indian water rights settlements, 
and Title XVI projects that are currently authorized, the total 
authorization, the balance to complete, and total 
appropriations to date; (4) an estimate of the total cost of 
extraordinary and emergency operation and maintenance to 
address the backlog of project needs due to the aging of 
Reclamation infrastructure; and (5) an explanation of the 
methodology used in determining the project allocations, 
together with the direction provided to field offices in the 
preparation of the five-year plan.

               BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                    (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................             - - -
Budget estimate, 2015.................................         $-500,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................          -500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................          -500,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (Public 
Law 84-984), loans and grants were made to non-federal 
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment 
of small water resource projects. The Loan Program currently 
has an outstanding loan balance of approximately $42,000,000. 
The most recent discretionary appropriation to this account was 
in fiscal year 2002 for direct loans and in fiscal year 2004 
for loan program administration. The fiscal year 2015 budget 
request proposes to cancel $500,000 in unobligated balances in 
this account. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends a 
rescission of $500,000, the same as the budget request. Loan 
program administration costs can be accommodated using 
remaining carryover funds.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

    The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for 
the purchase of passenger motor vehicles.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    The bill continues a provision regarding the circumstances 
in which the Bureau of Reclamation may reprogram funds.
    The bill continues a provision regarding the San Luis Unit 
and Kesterson Reservoir in California.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


                              INTRODUCTION

    Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department 
of Energy programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear 
Energy, Fossil Energy Research and Development, Naval Petroleum 
and Oil Shale Reserves, the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Northeast Home Heating Oil 
Reserve, the Energy Information Administration, Non-Defense 
Environmental Cleanup, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 
and Decommissioning Fund, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, the 
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, Innovative 
Technology Loan Guarantee Program, Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing Loans Program, Departmental Administration, 
Office of the Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the 
Administrator), Defense Environmental Management, Other Defense 
Activities, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Department of Energy has requested a total budget in 
fiscal year 2015 of $28,436,428,000, as estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office, to fund programs in its four 
primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, and 
national security. The Department of Energy budget request is 
$1,155,382,000 above fiscal year 2014 and, once again, includes 
significant increases to renewable energy programs and national 
defense mission areas while proposing significant reductions to 
Fossil Energy Research and Development and, to a much lesser 
extent, Nuclear Energy.
    The Committee recommendation is $27,305,845,000 for the 
Department of Energy, $24,799,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$667,583,000 below the budget request after adjusting for the 
Department's legislative proposal, which the recommendation 
does not include. The Committee's recommendation recognizes the 
difficult budgetary realities faced for fiscal year 2015. It 
restructures the balance of the bill to ensure inherently 
federal responsibilities, such as national security, basic 
science activities, and environmental cleanup, are supported, 
while investing in long-term research to improve the efficiency 
of existing forms of energy production and to develop new and 
innovative forms of energy for the nation's long-term energy 
independence and prosperity. The remaining resources are 
allocated to programs that can best address the threat of high 
gasoline and electricity prices and to those that help support 
American economic competitiveness in a global energy 
marketplace.

                        CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

    Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution 
states ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
consequence of Appropriations made by law''.
    The Committee continues the Department's reprogramming 
authority in statute to ensure that the Department carries out 
its programs consistent with congressional direction. This 
reprogramming authority is established at the program, project, 
or activity level, whichever is the most specific included in 
the text or table detailing the Committee's recommendation for 
the Department of Energy's various accounts. The Committee also 
prohibits new starts through the use of reprogramming and 
includes other direction to improve public oversight of the 
Department's actions. In addition, the recommendation continues 
a general provision specifying which transfer authorities may 
be used for accounts funded by this Act.

                          FINANCIAL REPORTING

    The Department is directed to continue to provide monthly 
Financial Balances Reports to the Committee. The reports should 
provide, for each program at the congressional control level as 
specified in the table in this Report an accounting of the 
following balances: total available (prior and current year); 
unobligated; unobligated but committed; and obligated, 
uncosted. Data should be provided both in summary form and by 
the fiscal year the funding was appropriated. Emergency 
funding, including any unspent American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act balances, should be displayed separately 
within the Report. When submitting its monthly report to the 
Committee, the Department shall identify and provide an 
explanation for any use of the Department's limited programming 
authority as provided under Section 301 of this Act. This 
direction shall apply to future fiscal years unless 
contradicted by the Committee.
    The Committee remains concerned over the lack of 
transparency in the Department's use of program direction funds 
and has specified program direction funding in the bill for the 
relevant accounts. In order to address excessive prior-year 
balances in program direction accounts, the Committee has also 
limited the period of availability of all program direction 
funds for the Department of Energy. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide to the Committees on Appropriations of 
the House of Representatives and the Senate an annual Program 
Direction Report that includes details for expended amounts for 
salaries and benefits, travel, support services, other related 
expenses, and other relevant categories. This report should 
include program direction balances in summary form and by the 
fiscal year.
    In addition to the buildup of unexpended prior-year program 
direction balances, the Committee is concerned by the buildup 
of excessive prior-year balances that are greater than five 
years old. The Department of Energy has exceptional operational 
flexibility because the period of availability of most of its 
funding is not limited. However, the Department has not 
properly managed its prior-year balances to ensure that funds 
are expeditiously expended. Retaining these old balances places 
a cumbersome administrative burden on DOE programs and makes 
the Department's financial management processes inefficient and 
unnecessarily complex. The bill contains a General Provision 
that eliminates unobligated balances older than five years from 
the Department's science and energy programs. By rescinding 
these old balances, this General Provision will serve to 
eliminate approximately one hundred existing budget and 
reporting codes that the Department is continuing to maintain 
and report against. For future years, the Department should 
consider all balances greater than five years old effectively 
expired. The Department shall submit all remaining unexpended 
balances greater than five years old as an offset to its annual 
budget request. If there is a valid justification for retaining 
certain balances, the Department may submit a specific request 
to retain such balances as an exception to this general 
direction.

           MANAGEMENT OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE

    Again this year, the Obama Administration continues its 
willful disregard for its legal responsibilities regarding 
Yucca Mountain. By unilaterally halting the Yucca Mountain 
High-Level Waste Geological Repository, the Administration has 
delayed fulfilling the federal government's legal requirement 
to take responsibility for civilian spent nuclear fuel, 
increasing the financial penalties taxpayers must bear. The 
Department's fiscal year 2013 Financial Report shows the 
estimated liability facing taxpayers is $25,100,000,000, an 
increase of $2,800,000,000 from the previous year and 
$9,800,000,000 since 2010, with $3,700,000,000 already paid by 
the Judgment Fund. This liability will continue to grow. In 
addition, high-level defense waste at sites across the country 
now have no disposition pathway, presenting the likelihood that 
the federal government will have to pay penalties to the states 
as deadlines for removal are missed.
    The credibility of the federal government has been further 
eroded by the blatant political maneuverings the Administration 
needed to skirt the law and halt the program. On August 13, 
2013, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals definitively ruled that 
the Administration's refusal to finish the Yucca Mountain 
license application was illegal. As a result, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has restarted the license application 
process and is scheduled to soon complete the final Safety 
Evaluation Report. The D.C. Circuit Court also unanimously 
ruled that the Department must stop collecting Nuclear Waste 
Fund fees ``until such time as either the Secretary chooses to 
comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as it is currently 
written, or until Congress enacts an alternative waste 
management plan.''
    Nevertheless, the Administration's fiscal year 2015 budget 
request once again includes a proposal to implement the 
Department's Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used 
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, which was 
informed by the Administration's Blue Ribbon Commission that by 
its very charter did not examine the suitability of Yucca 
Mountain as a permanent repository. This strategy is estimated 
to cost $5,700,000,000 over the next ten years and proposes to 
reform the current funding arrangement for the Department's 
nuclear waste fund management program. The Committee notes that 
the Department's proposal has not been considered by Congress, 
yet the Administration included $79,000,000 in its fiscal year 
2015 request for used nuclear fuel disposition, including 
activities necessary solely as a consequence of the 
Administration's Yucca Mountain policy. The recommendation 
rejects these non-Yucca proposals and makes clear that any 
activities funded from the Nuclear Waste Fund must be in 
support of Yucca Mountain.
    In addition, the recommendation provides $150,000,000 
within Nuclear Waste Disposal to support the Yucca Mountain 
High-Level Waste Geological Repository and $55,000,000 within 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support the continued 
adjudication of the Yucca Mountain license application. The 
Committee notes that geological repositories in addition to 
Yucca Mountain will be needed. If the Congress provides the 
authority for such repositories, as well as for a consensus-
based siting process, the Committee will consider support for 
such activities at that time. In the meantime, the bill 
contains a prohibition on using funds to close the Yucca 
Mountain license application or to take actions that would 
irrevocably remove Yucca Mountain as an option for a 
repository.

                        PROLIFERATION OF CENTERS

    The Committee has for years expressed concern with the 
Department's establishment of a variety of new research 
centers, or persistent, location-based grantees that receive 
funding across a number of years and that often require out-
year commitments subject to appropriations. Examples include 
Energy Frontier Research Centers, Energy Innovation Hubs, and 
BioEnergy Research Centers. The Department has continued to add 
to this list by proposing at least one additional Clean Energy 
Manufacturing Innovation (CEMI) Institute in fiscal year 2015, 
in addition to the two to be established using fiscal year 2014 
funding and the one already established using fiscal year 2013 
funding--each for five-year awards. The Department is also 
proposing to renew two of its Energy Innovation Hubs for their 
second five-year terms.
    Unfortunately, the Administration continues to propose 
these new ideas without examining, or at least articulating, 
why existing programs are inadequate or underperforming. No 
offsets are offered within existing programs, and no policy 
prescriptions are offered. The Committee continues to support 
the ongoing review of all existing research centers and expects 
frequent and thorough updates as the Department considers their 
relative effectiveness and potential renewal or termination in 
future years. The Committee urges the Department to look at its 
programs as a portfolio of approaches to achieve results and to 
propose eliminating less effective programs and support 
mechanisms.
    While many of these centers have been proposed openly and 
established with congressional concurrence, several have been 
established or renewed over the years with little or no 
justification in the budget requests, including Manufacturing 
Demonstration Facilities and CEMI Institutes. Further, many 
centers have been funded perennially and lack a concrete goal 
after which they would be terminated. This practice has led to 
the proliferation of centers across many Departmental programs 
consuming program budgets and preventing prioritization of 
funds towards other higher-priority activities. Addressing this 
problem requires greater transparency, evaluation, and 
prioritization to ensure that only highly-effective centers 
closely aligned to program missions are funded.
    In fiscal year 2014, the Department was directed to submit 
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate a comprehensive list of all 
centers to be funded in the fiscal year, including the date of 
establishment, purpose, milestones, funding level in the fiscal 
year, total funding received to date, out-year mortgages, and 
expected termination date. The Department has yet to submit 
this list, so the Committee reiterates its previous direction. 
Furthermore, the Department is directed to explicitly include 
in future budget justifications all centers, hubs, institutes, 
facilities, and any other persistent, location-based grantee; 
their current and proposed funding levels; expected out-year 
commitments; and details on their programmatic and technical 
goals.

                         EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

    The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and 
scholarship programs in fiscal year 2015 unless the programs 
were explicitly included in the budget justification or funded 
within this recommendation. Any new or ongoing programs that 
the Department chooses to fund in fiscal year 2015 must be 
detailed in the fiscal year 2015 budget request documents. This 
direction shall be followed in future fiscal years unless 
contradicted by the Committee.
    Understanding that harnessing scientific and technological 
ingenuity has long been at the core of America's prosperity, 
the Department of Energy has programs designed to increase the 
number of underrepresented minorities in the Science, 
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) area. The 
Committee strongly encourages the Department to maintain this 
commitment by engaging in competitions supporting programs, 
including within the energy sciences and nonproliferation and 
in partnership with the national laboratories, that increase 
the number of underrepresented college minorities in STEM 
fields.
    The Department has also recognized that beyond federal 
programs, there are successful initiatives being pursued by 
non-profit organizations that provide examples of best 
practices, including exposure to STEM education and career 
opportunities at all levels of education, financial assistance, 
one-on-one mentoring, and expanded participation in crucial 
research and development. The Committee encourages the 
Department to look for opportunities to leverage its investment 
with these non-profits.

                 REPROGRAMMING AND TRANSFER GUIDELINES

    The Committee requires the Department to inform the 
Committee promptly and in detail when a change in program 
execution and funding is required during the fiscal year. The 
Department's reprogramming requirements are detailed in 
statute. To assist the Department in this effort, the following 
guidance is provided for programs and activities funded in the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
    Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of 
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation. The 
recommendation includes a general provision providing internal 
reprogramming authority to the Department, as long as no 
program, project, or activity is increased or decreased by more 
than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, compared to 
the levels in the text or table detailing the Committee's 
recommendations for the Department's various accounts. For 
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the 
reallocation of funds from one construction project to another 
project or a change of $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is 
less, in the scope of an approved project.
    Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made 
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if 
delay of the project or activity until the next fiscal year 
would result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or 
priority. A reprogramming may also be considered if the 
Department can show that significant cost savings can accrue by 
increasing funding for an activity. Mere convenience or 
preference should not be a factor for consideration. A 
reprogramming may not be employed to initiate new programs, or 
to change program, project, or activity allocations 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by the Congress in 
the Act or report.
    Reporting and Approval Procedures.--In recognition of the 
security missions of the Department, the legislative guidelines 
allow the Secretary and the Administrator of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration jointly to waive the 
reprogramming restriction by certifying to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
that it is in the nation's security interest to do so. The 
Department shall not deviate from the levels for activities 
specified in the report that are below the level of the detail 
table, except through the regular notification procedures of 
the Committee. No funds may be added to programs for which 
funding has been denied. Any reallocation of new or prior-year 
budget authority or prior-year de-obligations, or any request 
to implement a reorganization which includes moving previous 
appropriations between appropriations accounts must be 
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate in writing and may not be 
implemented prior to approval by the Committees.
    Transfers.--As in fiscal year 2014, funding actions into or 
out of accounts funded by Title III of this Act may be made by 
transfer authorities provided only by this or other 
Appropriations Acts.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy 
programs in fiscal year 2015 are described in the following 
sections. A detailed funding table is included at the end of 
this title.

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS


                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................    $1,901,686,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................     2,316,749,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................     1,789,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................      -112,686,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................      -527,749,000
 

    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs 
include research, development, demonstration, and deployment 
activities advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy 
technologies, as well as federal energy assistance programs. 
The EERE program is divided into three portfolios: sustainable 
transportation, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. The 
sustainable transportation portfolio, which consists of the 
vehicles, bioenergy, and hydrogen and fuel cell programs, 
advances the development of plug-in electric and other 
alternative vehicles, high-efficiency advanced combustion 
engines, and the replacement of oil with clean domestic 
transportation fuels. The renewable energy portfolio, which 
consists of the solar, wind, water, and geothermal programs, 
aims to develop innovative technologies to make renewable 
electricity generation cost competitive with traditional 
sources of energy. The energy efficiency portfolio, which 
consists of the advanced manufacturing, buildings, and federal 
energy assistance programs, seeks cost-effective solutions to 
reduce energy consumption in plants, buildings, and homes.
    The Committee recommends $1,789,000,000 for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $112,686,000 below fiscal year 
2014 and $527,749,000 below the budget request.
    For the purposes of allocating funding, the Committee 
encourages the Department to examine the feasibility of 
ultraconductive copper as an application-driven, crosscutting 
technology area, including funding to support prototype 
development and the scale-up of manufacturing with established 
experts within EERE.

                       SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION

    The Vehicle, Bioenergy, and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 
Technologies programs fund activities that can reduce American 
exposure to future high oil prices. Research into cutting-edge 
technologies that will increase the fuel economy of gasoline 
and diesel fuel vehicles--the vast majority of today's fleet--
will allow Americans to spend less on fuel while traveling the 
same distance. Research into next-generation automotive and 
fuel cell technologies that power vehicles with domestic energy 
sources such as natural gas, electricity, biofuels, and 
hydrogen can likewise dramatically lower the impact of future 
high gas prices on Americans.
    The Committee recommends $557,500,000 for Sustainable 
Transportation, $57,822,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$147,683,000 below the budget request.
    Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$277,500,000 for Vehicle Technologies, $12,410,000 below fiscal 
year 2014 and $81,500,000 below the budget request. Within 
available funds, the recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the 
SuperTruck program, a cost-shared project with industry to 
design a heavy-duty Class 8 truck with 50 percent improvement 
in overall freight efficiency. The Committee acknowledges the 
progress made towards the SuperTruck program's goals, 
anticipates continued progress in fiscal year 2015, and 
supports the fulfillment of existing contracts to advance 
commercialization of truck technologies demonstrated by 
industry partners. The Committee encourages the Department to 
assess the achievements of the current program and whether 
additional measures should be identified to further advance 
fuel economy gains and to demonstrate the most promising 
technologies that incorporate both the long-haul and regional-
haul segments.
    The recommendation provides $102,000,000 for Batteries and 
Electric Drive Technology, of which $40,800,000 is for advanced 
battery development. With additional funds above the request 
for advanced battery development, the Department is directed to 
expand high quality, independent, national laboratory 
performance testing and lifecycle diagnostic assessment 
activities, in order to validate and verify advanced battery 
performance under normal operating conditions. The Department 
is further directed to submit, not later than December 31, 
2014, a report on its plan to utilize national laboratory 
capabilities to expand battery performance science capabilities 
for validation and to predict energy storage performance.
    The recommendation provides $27,900,000 for Outreach and 
Development, of which $24,000,000 is for the Clean Cities 
program. No funding is provided for Advanced Fuel Vehicle 
Community Projects or the Transportation Electrification 
Program.
    For other subprograms within Vehicle Technologies, the 
recommendation provides $34,500,000 for Vehicle and Systems 
Simulation and Testing, of which no funding is included for the 
grid integration initiative; $49,000,000 for Advanced 
Combustion Engines; $36,000,000 for Materials Technology; and 
$25,000,000 for Fuels Technology.
    The Committee encourages Vehicle Technologies to leverage 
the expertise of various experimental and computational 
collaborative programs among universities, national 
laboratories, and industry to develop sustainable technologies 
that will improve the overall fuel economy of heavy-duty 
transportation systems.
    Bioenergy Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$180,000,000 for Bioenergy Technologies, $52,429,000 below 
fiscal year 2014 and $73,200,000 below the budget request.
    Within available funds, the recommendation includes 
$46,500,000 for Feedstocks, of which $30,000,000 is for 
research and development of biofuels from algae feedstocks; 
$90,500,000 for Conversion Technologies, of which no funding is 
included for a conversion incubator; $25,800,000 for 
Demonstration and Deployment, of which no funding is for the 
joint initiative with the Navy and the Department of 
Agriculture to develop commercial diesel and jet biofuels 
production capacity for defense purposes; and $11,000,000 for 
Strategic Analysis and Crosscutting Sustainability.
    The Department is directed not to procure or use commonly 
recycled paper that is segregated from municipal solid waste 
for electricity generation or to make grants for renewable 
biofuels production to any facility that uses as a feedstock 
recycled paper that is segregated from municipal solid waste. 
For the purposes of allocating resources, the Department is 
encouraged to include biosolids derived from the municipal 
wastewater treatment process and other similar renewables 
within the definition of noncellulosic biomass. The Committee 
also encourages the Department to evaluate the potential for 
the conversion of degradables in combined trash to liquid- and 
gaseous-fuels, and chemical intermediates at distributed 
locations where optimal, in order to determine the national 
resource potential and the benefits of this approach compared 
to other approaches, including the densification of wastes to 
be transferred to centralized conversion facilities.
    The Committee notes that research, development, and 
demonstration of direct liquefaction of biomass via a pyrolysis 
event and the subsequent upgrading and cracking to renewable 
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels is a high priority pathway to 
produce fuels from a range of biomass sources. The Committee 
supports the Department's continued efforts to examine the 
testing of new catalysts, separations strategies, and 
engineering designs at the bench- and pilot-scale to enable 
rapid evaluation of promising technologies.
    The Committee also notes that the oil content of algae is 
only approximately 25 percent of the total biomass of algae, 
yet efforts to date have predominantly focused on extracting 
and processing oil from algae. The Committee encourages the 
Department to examine the commercial potential for value added 
renewable products that are derived from biomass intermediates 
or a slipstream on the trajectory towards biofuels, which might 
include proteins, fish food, and other renewable chemicals.
    Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.--The Committee 
recommends $100,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 
Technologies, $7,017,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $7,017,000 
above the budget request.
    Of the funding provided above the budget request, an 
additional $5,000,000 is for Technology Validation to conduct 
testing and analysis of fuel cells as industrial-scale energy 
storage devices, with validation and testing using full-scale 
testing and demonstration capabilities. To support this effort, 
the Committee recommends that the Department leverage national 
laboratory, university, and regional stakeholder partnerships 
and capabilities, including at-scale grid infrastructure, 
modeling expertise, extreme environment testing capabilities, 
and public-private partnerships. The remaining $2,017,000 above 
the request is to support cost-shared advanced demonstration 
and deployment activities that validate commercial viability, 
including material handling equipment, ground support 
equipment, refrigerated trucks, auxiliary power units, and 
associated hydrogen infrastructure.

                            RENEWABLE ENERGY

    The Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Water Power, and Geothermal 
Technologies programs fund applied research, development, and 
demonstration to reduce the cost of renewable energy to 
economically competitive levels. Research into innovative 
technologies, such as photovoltaic and concentrating solar 
technologies, offshore wind, hydropower, and ground heat, can 
expand energy production from our domestic resources and reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil.
    The Committee recommends $369,500,000 for Renewable Energy, 
$80,292,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $151,800,000 below the 
budget request.
    Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $178,000,000 for 
Solar Energy, $79,211,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$104,300,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $37,000,000 for Concentrating Solar 
Power, of which $10,000,000 is for the joint Supercritical 
Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation program with 
the Offices of Fossil Energy and Nuclear Energy; $38,000,000 
for Photovoltaic Research and Development; $39,500,000 for 
Systems Integration, of which no funding is included for the 
grid integration initiative; and $43,000,000 for Innovations in 
Manufacturing Competitiveness, of which $10,000,000 is for the 
Sunshot Incubator.
    Within the funds available for Innovations in Manufacturing 
Competitiveness, the Committee directs the Solar Technologies 
program to provide funding opportunities, as proposed in the 
budget request, that support U.S. equipment supply chain 
technology efforts, which will reduce the cost of manufacturing 
silicon photovoltaic cells by reducing the amount of raw 
material silicon needed to produce a solar cell while also 
increasing manufacturing efficiencies by removing manufacturing 
process steps to produce solar cells.
    Keeping American manufacturing competitive continues to be 
a major priority for the Committee across all technology areas, 
and the Committee encourages the Department to continue to 
prioritize solar manufacturing initiatives within this program 
and, to the extent possible within available funding, to 
explore crosscutting advanced solar films aimed at improving 
the cost-effectiveness of solar technologies. The Committee 
also recognizes the need to lower the cost of solar power 
products and installation for customers and requests that the 
Department work with interested stakeholders to achieve that 
end.
    Wind Energy.--The Committee recommends $107,000,000 for 
Wind Energy, $18,821,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $8,000,000 
below the budget request. Within available funds, the 
recommendation provides the requested level of $42,613,000 for 
the Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Project; an 
additional $5,000,000 to continue research and development in 
support of the offshore demonstration project; and $500,000 for 
the Wind for Schools program.
    The Committee continues to support wind activities with 
large generation potential that rely on technology innovations 
that would not be developed by the private sector alone. To 
this end, the Committee supports an emphasis on offshore wind 
technologies that address the unique opportunities and issues 
across the nation's waterways, such as high winds, icing, and 
deep water, rather than those technologies currently being 
considered by the private sector.
    Water Power.--The Committee recommends $38,500,000 for 
Water Power, $20,100,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $24,000,000 
below the budget request. Within available funds, the 
recommendation provides $19,000,000 for marine and hydrokinetic 
technologies and $19,000,000 for conventional hydropower, of 
which $3,960,000 is for the purposes of Section 242 of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    Geothermal Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$46,000,000 for Geothermal Technologies, $198,000 above fiscal 
year 2014 and $15,500,000 below the budget request. Within 
available funds, the recommendation provides $27,000,000 for 
Enhanced Geothermal Systems, of which $21,000,000 is for site 
selection and characterization activities for the Frontier 
Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy project.

                           ENERGY EFFICIENCY

    The Advanced Manufacturing, Building Technologies, Federal 
Energy Management, and Weatherization and Intergovernmental 
programs advance cost-effective solutions to reduce energy 
consumption through increased efficiency. Research into 
cutting-edge technologies that enhance manufacturing processes, 
develop advanced materials, and reduce energy use in buildings, 
homes, and factories can serve the national interest by greatly 
reducing our energy needs, while also giving American 
manufacturers an advantage to compete in the global 
marketplace.
    The Committee recommends $644,000,000 for Energy 
Efficiency, $26,182,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $213,700,000 
below the budget request.
    Within available funds for energy efficiency, the Committee 
directs the Department to work with its partner agencies and 
relevant industry partners to submit, not later than September 
30, 2015, a report on the potential benefits, cost savings, and 
reduced energy use of a mechanical insulation maintenance and 
upgrade program in federal facilities, as well as an evaluation 
of approaches for increasing the use of mechanical insulation 
in federal energy efficiency programs.
    Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends 
$206,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing, $25,421,000 above 
fiscal year 2014 and $99,100,000 below the budget request. 
Within available funds, the recommendation provides not less 
than $4,205,000 for improvements in the steel industry; not 
less than $20,000,000 for combined heat and power activities 
relevant to industrial applications and energy savings in 
manufacturing processes; and not less than $500,000 to continue 
efforts furthering improvements in mechanical insulation. The 
Committee encourages the Department to continue to support 
technical assistance for combined heat and power demonstrations 
and deployments that support systems-level optimization, 
microgrids, and grid integration, as well as research and 
development into next-generation combined heat and power 
technologies.
    For subprograms within Advanced Manufacturing, the 
recommendation provides $84,900,000 for Next Generation 
Manufacturing Research and Development Projects, of which 
$12,900,000 is for the Advanced Manufacturing Incubator; 
$28,500,000 for Industrial Technical Assistance; and 
$92,500,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development 
Facilities, of which $25,000,000 is for the fourth year of 
funding for the Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub, 
$10,000,000 is for the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility and 
the Carbon Fiber Test Facility, $1,500,000 is for the joint 
additive manufacturing pilot institute with the Department of 
Defense, and $56,000,000 is for four Clean Energy Manufacturing 
Innovation (CEMI) Institutes. The Department may use up to 
$6,000,000 of funding provided under Research and Development 
Projects to support operations of the Manufacturing 
Demonstration Facility and the Carbon Fiber Test Facility, 
should additional funding be needed.
    The Committee notes that CEMI Institutes constitute the 
largest funding activity within Advanced Manufacturing's fiscal 
year 2015 budget request, yet the Department has provided scant 
justification on its proposed research topics or mission needs. 
For example, the Department requests $155,500,000 for CEMI 
Institutes in fiscal year 2015 to establish ``at least one new 
Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institute,'' in addition 
to the two to be established using fiscal year 2014 funds and 
one already established using fiscal year 2013 funds, with the 
balance of the request presumably to forward fund existing CEMI 
Institutes or to establish additional CEMI Institutes not 
enumerated in the request. The recommendation supports the 
establishment of one new CEMI Institute in fiscal year 2015, in 
addition to the three established using fiscal years 2013 and 
2014 funding. Should the Department propose funding for 
additional CEMI Institutes in the future, the Committee directs 
that all future budget justifications include a specific 
research topic associated with a CEMI Institute, which will 
provide the Committee with the necessary transparency to 
evaluate and prioritize funding to ensure that only highly-
effective centers closely aligned with Advanced Manufacturing 
program missions are funded.
    The Committee is aware that efficiency is a key focus in 
the upcoming Advanced Manufacturing Office motors survey study. 
The Department is encouraged to investigate efficiencies that 
will be derived from electric propulsion systems, which the 
Committee recognizes can equate to significant national annual 
energy savings on the magnitude of $100,000,000,000.
    The Committee is also aware that the U.S. represents the 
largest market for lithium metal, a near critical material with 
national security and advanced manufacturing applications. The 
U.S. military relies on primary lithium batteries to provide 
power for communication devices, countermeasure devices, global 
positioning systems, guidance systems, missiles, torpedoes, 
guided artillery, and fuses. Lithium metal is also essential in 
fuel-efficient aircraft bodies, medical devices, and as a means 
to produce organometallics, which are used in manufacturing 
eco-friendlier tires, widely used drugs, superior fungicides, 
recyclable polymer materials, and grid energy storage devices. 
The Committee notes that the U.S. domestic supply and 
technology position of lithium metal is on a downward trend 
relative to China and Russia should U.S. domestic supply not 
increase by 2020. The Committee directs the Department to 
examine the impact federal investment may have in strengthening 
our availability and usage of lithium, including low-sodium 
lithium metal.
    Building Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$165,000,000 for Building Technologies, $12,974,000 below 
fiscal year 2014 and $46,700,000 below the budget request. 
Within available funds, up to $15,000,000 is to continue high 
value research into energy efficient building systems with 
national application, should the Department determine 
additional work to be merited. Prior to execution of these 
funds, the Department shall ensure that the research has clear 
and measurable goals with realistic timeframes to improve the 
energy efficiency of buildings and submit the research plan to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate.
    Furthermore, the recommendation includes $14,000,000 for 
the Building America program, the same as the request, and 
$6,000,000 for research and development activities for small 
scale combined heat and power systems that can be used for 
residential and small commercial settings.
    For the subprograms within Building Technologies, the 
recommendation provides $28,000,000 for Commercial Buildings 
Integration; $55,862,000 for Emerging Technologies, of which 
$25,800,000 is for solid state lighting and, in addition to 
funds recommended for lighting research and development, 
$5,000,000 is for the second Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize, or 
``L Prize,'' which offers both a monetary prize and federal 
procurement and other benefits to the first organization that 
manufactures highly-efficient PAR38 halogen replacement lamps 
meeting various technical requirements; $40,438,000 for 
Equipment and Buildings Standards; and $23,000,000 for 
Residential Buildings Integration. The recommendation provides 
no funding within Building Technologies for the grid 
integration initiative.
    Consistent with current policy, the Department is directed 
not to advocate, promote, or discourage the adoption or 
inclusion of a particular building energy code or code 
provision, other than the technical and economic analysis work 
required by statutory mandate, or to provide funding to private 
third parties or non-governmental organizations that engage in 
this type of advocacy.
    The Committee is aware that the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 assigned the Department the role to 
develop energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, a 
responsibility which had previously been assumed by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The 
Committee directs the Department to work closely with HUD, 
industry, and tenant groups to ensure that any proposed 
standards take equally into account the up-front cost of 
housing and life cycle operating costs.
    In June 2010, the Department of Energy amended the existing 
energy conservation standards for residential water heaters. 
The Committee is concerned that efficiency standards for large-
capacity water heaters, scheduled to take effect in April 2015, 
would endanger the long-term sustainability of more than 250 
voluntary demand response programs in 34 states. These programs 
reduce energy use during peak hours, improve the integration of 
renewable energy resources, and lower energy costs for 
consumers. The Committee is aware of bipartisan agreement in 
both chambers to create a new classification for certain grid-
enabled residential water heaters that are intended for use as 
part of an electric thermal storage or demand response program 
and that would be exempt from this final rule. The Committee 
continues to track progress of this bipartisan legislation and 
directs the Department to work with stakeholders to allow for 
the continued manufacture and use of grid-enabled water 
heaters.
    Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee 
recommends $20,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management 
Program, $8,265,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $16,200,000 
below the budget request.
    Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs.--The 
Committee recommends $253,000,000 for Weatherization and 
Intergovernmental Programs, $22,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 
and $51,700,000 below the budget request.
    The recommendation provides $200,000,000 for Weatherization 
Assistance Grants, all of which is for formula grants; 
$3,000,000 for Training and Technical Assistance; and 
$50,000,000 for the State Energy Program. The recommendation 
includes no funding for Clean Energy and Economic Development 
Partnerships or for competitive awards within the 
Weatherization Assistance Program to develop and test financing 
models to support energy efficiency retrofits. The 
recommendation includes the Tribal Energy Program in 
Departmental Administration.
    Social Cost of Carbon.--The Committee understands that the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) is currently reviewing 
the process the Administration used to develop estimates to 
calculate the social cost of carbon. The Committee believes 
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs should 
not allow any regulations to be finalized using the Technical 
Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 
for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, 
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 
States Government, May 2013 until public comments on the 
document have been evaluated, the GAO report has been submitted 
and reviewed, and any necessary changes to the technical 
support document are incorporated.

                           CORPORATE SUPPORT

    The Program Direction, Strategic Programs, and Facilities 
and Infrastructure budgets provide the necessary resources for 
program and project management across all of EERE's technology 
programs, for the adoption of technologies to market, and for 
the operation and upkeep of the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory.
    The Committee recommends $218,000,000 for Corporate Support 
programs, $13,554,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $19,779,000 
below the budget request.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $150,000,000 
for Program Direction, $12,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$10,000,000 below the budget request.
    Strategic Programs.--The Committee recommends $12,000,000 
for Strategic Programs, of which $2,000,000 is for the U.S.-
Israel energy cooperative agreement and $2,000,000 is for the 
joint industrial scale integrated energy systems research and 
development effort with the Office of Nuclear Energy.
    Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends 
$56,000,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure, of which 
$26,000,000 is for Operations and Maintenance and $30,000,000 
is for Facility Management.

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $147,306,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       180,000,000
Recommended, 2014.....................................       160,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       +12,694,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       -20,000,000
 

    The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program 
advances technologies and provides operational support to 
increase the efficiency, resilience, and security of the 
nation's electricity delivery system. The power grid employs 
aging technologies at a time when power demands, the deployment 
of new intermittent technologies, and rising security threats 
are imposing new stresses on the system. The Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability aims to develop a 
modern power grid by advancing cyber security technologies, 
intelligent and high-efficiency grid components, and energy 
storage systems.
    The Committee recommends $160,000,000 for Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability, $12,694,000 above fiscal year 
2014 and $20,000,000 below the budget request.
    Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and 
Development.--The Committee recommends $109,500,000 for 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and 
Development, $3,800,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $11,900,000 
below the budget request. Within available funds, the 
recommendation provides $32,700,000 for Clean Energy 
Transmission and Reliability, of which $5,000,000 is for the 
Energy Systems Predictive Capability activity; $14,600,000 for 
Smart Grid; $15,200,000 for Energy Storage; and $47,000,000 for 
cyber security for energy delivery systems, of which $5,000,000 
is to continue development of the industry-scale electric grid 
test bed.
    Within available funds for Energy Storage, the Committee 
encourages the Department to continue examining evolving 
battery technologies when funding research and development and 
pilot programs on the basis of long lifecycle and low capital 
and maintenance costs, with the battery system able to provide 
grid storage of energy that can be drawn on by demand.
    The Committee recognizes the value an independent 
assessment may have to verify, criticize, and reinforce key 
issues within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability's mission to support the nation's electricity 
delivery system. Within available funds for Clean Energy 
Transmission and Reliability, up to $1,000,000 shall be for the 
Department to contract with an appropriate organization, such 
as the National Research Council, to conduct a national level 
comprehensive study on the future resilience and reliability of 
the nation's electric power transmission and distribution 
system. At a minimum, the report should include technological 
options for strengthening the capabilities of the nation's 
power grid; a review of federal, State, industry, and academic 
research and development programs; and an evaluation of cyber 
security for energy delivery systems. Not later than September 
30, 2015, the Department shall submit the findings to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate.
    Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration (ISER).--The 
Committee recommends $16,000,000 for Infrastructure Security 
and Energy Restoration, $8,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$6,600,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $8,000,000 for the ISER activity 
and $8,000,000 for the Operational Energy and Resilience (OER) 
program, of which all funding shall be to support construction 
of the Energy Resilience and Operations Center within the 
Department's Washington, D.C. headquarters. The Committee notes 
that physical construction of this strategic operations center 
will take approximately one year and must be completed before 
equipment installation may take place. The recommendation 
provides no funding for dedicated staff for the OER program, 
about which the Committee reiterates its concerns of the 
Department's intent to embed staff within each of the ten 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions. The 
Committee directs the Department to submit not later than 
February 1, 2015, a strategic workforce plan, including out-
year budget costs, for a modified OER program in which staff is 
not embedded into the FEMA regional offices. The Committee 
further directs any funding for staff be included in Program 
Direction in future budget submissions.
    The Committee directs the Department to submit not later 
than three months after enactment of this Act a report on its 
efforts to support the physical and cyber security of the 
electricity grid. The report should include the following: an 
analysis of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation 
physical security standards developed in response to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's March 7, 2014, order, as 
well as areas for improvement, if necessary; the Department's 
plans to better understand and respond to the correlation of 
threats against physical infrastructure, operational technology 
systems, and informational technology systems of the 
electricity grid; the Department's efforts to reach out to and 
incorporate the private sector; and whether the Department 
should have a larger role to assist owners of critical 
infrastructure to develop the necessary capabilities to provide 
security to the nation's electricity grid.

                             Nuclear Energy


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $889,190,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       863,386,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       899,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        +9,810,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       +35,614,000
 

    Nuclear power generates approximately one-fifth of the 
nation's electricity and will continue to be an important base-
load energy source in the future. The Department of Energy's 
Nuclear Energy program invests in research, development, and 
demonstration activities that develop the next generation of 
clean and safe reactors, further improve the safety of our 
current reactor fleet, and contribute to the nation's long-term 
leadership in the global nuclear power industry.
    The Committee recommends $899,000,000 for Nuclear Energy, 
$9,810,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $35,614,000 above the 
budget request.

                NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee provides $483,500,000 for Nuclear Energy 
Research and Development, $5,130,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$15,614,000 above the budget request.
    Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--The Committee 
recommends $101,000,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling 
Technologies, $29,870,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$22,754,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $14,000,000 for Crosscutting 
Technology Development; $26,200,000 for Nuclear Energy Advanced 
Modeling and Simulation, of which funding above the request is 
for additional support of the advanced computational tools and 
methods developed by various Nuclear Energy programs; 
$24,300,000 for the first year of the second five-year term of 
the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation; and 
$36,500,000 for the National Science User Facility, of which 
funding above the request is to complete the installation of 
advanced post-irradiation examination equipment at the 
Irradiated Materials Characterization Laboratory.
    Integrated University Program.--The Committee recommends 
$5,000,000 to continue the Integrated University Program, which 
is critical to ensuring the nation's nuclear science and 
engineering workforce in future years.
    Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Licensing Technical Support.--
The Committee recommends $54,500,000 for SMR Licensing 
Technical Support, $55,500,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$42,500,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs 
that all fiscal year 2015 funding within this program is to 
support the second award for an SMR design. The Committee is 
aware that the need for fiscal year 2015 funding for the first 
award under the SMR Licensing Technical Support program may 
change throughout the year and will consider additional funding 
according to developments.
    Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and 
Demonstration.--The Committee recommends $138,000,000 for 
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration, 
$25,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $37,460,000 above the 
budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation 
provides $35,000,000 for Light Water Reactor Sustainability, of 
which $12,700,000 is to support advanced safety methods 
development and the risk informed safety margin 
characterization methodology; $2,000,000 for the joint 
industrial scale integrated energy systems research and 
development effort with the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy; and $101,000,000 for Advanced Reactor 
Concepts to include the following activities: $33,000,000 is 
for research of the fuel and graphite qualification program for 
the High Temperature Gas Reactor; $12,500,000 is for the 
further development of two performance-based advanced reactor 
concepts, of which $7,500,000 is for industry-only competition 
of two performance-based advanced reactor concepts and 
$5,000,000 is for the national laboratories selected to work 
with the awardees to perform the work required by the awardees 
to meet the goals of the awards; and $7,000,000 is for an 
advanced test/demonstration reactor planning study by the 
national laboratories, industry, and other relevant 
stakeholders of such a reactor in the U.S. The study will 
evaluate advanced reactor technology options, capabilities, and 
requirements within the context of national needs and public 
policy to support innovation in nuclear energy. The 
recommendation funds other activities within Advanced Reactor 
Concepts at the requested level and accepts the Department's 
proposal to consolidate Advanced SMR Research and Development 
with Advanced Reactor Concepts.
    Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee 
recommends $182,000,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and 
Development, $4,500,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $7,100,000 
below the budget request. Within available funds, the 
recommendation provides $60,100,000 for the Advanced Fuels 
Program to continue implementation of accident tolerant fuels 
development, of which $12,000,000 is for additional support of 
feasibility studies for accident tolerant light water reactor 
fuels and $5,000,000 is for additional support of capability 
development of transient testing, including test design, 
modeling, and simulation.
    The recommendation provides $55,000,000 for Used Nuclear 
Fuel Disposition (UNFD), $5,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$24,000,000 below the budget request. The budget request for 
UNFD is organized into two distinct activities: $49,000,000 for 
research and development activities to enable storage, 
transportation, and disposal of used nuclear fuel and wastes 
generated by existing and future nuclear cycles, and 
$30,000,000 for integrated waste management system activities 
to lay the groundwork and develop options for decision makers 
on the design of an integrated waste management system. The 
recommendation provides $55,000,000 for UNFD research and 
development activities, $25,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$6,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, 
the Committee directs the Department to support research and 
development of advanced sensors, online monitoring, and other 
non-destructive evaluation and examination technologies to 
ensure long-term dry cask storage integrity. Of the funding 
provided above the budget request for UNFD research and 
development, $6,000,000 is to support activities to design and 
certify a rail car or cars for use with licensed and 
anticipated transportation casks. No funding is provided for 
integrated waste management system activities.

                   RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Radiological 
Facilities Management, $20,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
the same as the budget request, to support the continued 
operation of U.S. research reactors by providing research 
reactor fuel services and maintenance of fuel fabrication 
equipment.

                      IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $206,000,000 for Idaho Facilities 
Management, $9,440,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $20,090,000 
above the budget request.
    INL Operations and Infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommends $200,631,000 for INL Operations and Infrastructure, 
$20,469,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $20,090,000 above the 
budget request. Of the funds provided above the budget request, 
the recommendation provides an additional $5,000,000 for 
nuclear facility and support systems major maintenance; 
$6,000,000 for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) safety margin 
improvement preliminary design and estimating; $4,000,000 for 
ATR evaporation pond liner replacement; and $3,000,000 for the 
replacement of windows, manipulators, and process equipment at 
the Hot Fuel Examination Facility.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $5,369,000 for 
Construction, $11,029,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same 
as the request, for design and construction of the Remote-
Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project, a joint project with 
Naval Reactors.

                 IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $104,000,000 for Idaho Sitewide 
Safeguards and Security, $10,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
the same as the budget request. The recommendation continues to 
fund this activity out of the Nuclear Energy account, as 
proposed in the budget request, and not out of Other Defense 
Activities, as it was prior to fiscal year 2014.

        SUPERCRITICAL TRANSFORMATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION

    The Committee recommends $27,500,000 for the Supercritical 
Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation Initiative, 
$27,500,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget 
request, to develop and scale up advanced supercritical carbon 
dioxide Brayton Cycle energy conversion technologies to pre-
commercial pilot demonstration to facilitate commercial 
development. This is a joint initiative with the Office of 
Fossil Energy and the Solar Energy program within the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    The Committee directs that any demonstration funding be to 
support a partnership with commercial channel partners to 
develop a pilot-scale supercritical carbon dioxide 
demonstration facility for temperatures greater than 700 
degrees Celsius and that has broad applicability to fossil, 
nuclear, and solar heat sources. The Department may modify the 
cost-share ratio in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 as well as the temperature requirement upon certification 
the operating parameters have broad applicability to fossil, 
nuclear, and solar heat sources that achieve the high 
performance characteristics afforded by supercritical carbon 
dioxide cycles. The Committee encourages the Office of Nuclear 
Energy to utilize the expertise already developed within the 
Office of Fossil Energy's turbine program, which has experience 
in similar conversion work and component development.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $562,065,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       475,500,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       593,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       +30,935,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................      +117,500,000
 

    Fossil energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural 
gas, provide approximately 82 percent of all energy used by the 
nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for 
the majority of our needs for the foreseeable future. The 
Fossil Energy Research and Development program funds research, 
development, and demonstration activities to improve existing 
technologies and to develop next-generation systems in the full 
spectrum of fossil energy areas. At a time when fossil fuel 
power generation is expanding around the globe and gas prices 
remain at historically high levels, the activities funded 
within this program advance our nation's position as a leader 
in fossil energy technologies and ensure that we use the full 
extent of our domestic resources safely and efficiently.
    The Committee recommends $593,000,000 for Fossil Energy 
Research and Development, $30,935,000 above fiscal year 2014 
and $117,500,000 above the budget request.
    Once again, the budget request proposes severe reductions 
to the Office of Fossil Energy's coal program and requests 
funding be focused on carbon capture and storage technologies 
and projects. This focus underemphasizes two areas critical to 
our nation's energy future: the efficient use of existing 
fossil energy resources and the full, safe, and responsible use 
of untapped domestic resources. The Committee recommendation 
increases funding in these areas to improve the efficiency of 
power generation and to bolster efforts that can help protect 
Americans from future high gasoline and diesel prices. In 
addition to securing the domestic energy sector and protecting 
consumers and businesses from future increases in electricity 
and gas prices, technological advances in these areas will help 
American industry compete in the booming global marketplace for 
fossil energy technologies.
    Liquefied Natural Gas Export Applications.--The Committee 
remains concerned about the backlog of liquefied natural gas 
export applications at the Department of Energy. To date, 
applications for export to non-free trade agreement (FTA) 
countries have been prone to lengthy delays, with only seven of 
33 applications approved to date and multiple applications 
pending at the Department for more than two years. On May 29, 
2014, the Department proposed to discontinue conditional 
approvals of applications for export to non-FTA countries and 
instead make final public interest determinations only after 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conducts environmental 
reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. It is 
unclear whether these proposed changes would accelerate the 
Department's adjudication of applications or make them 
susceptible to further bureaucratic delays. The Committee 
continues to support a clearly communicated, timely process to 
reach an appropriate determination on each application and 
reiterates its previous direction to the Department, as first 
required in House Report 113-135 and referenced by the fiscal 
year 2014 Act, to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than one 
month after enactment of this Act its plan to complete 
consideration of all applications filed with the Department.
    Carbon Utilization Technologies.--The Committee encourages 
the Office of Fossil Energy to examine the feasibility of 
carbon utilization technologies in addition to its work on 
enhanced oil recovery, such as projects that utilize large 
volumes of carbon dioxide in the production of algae. The 
Committee urges the Office of Fossil Energy to coordinate with 
the Bioenergy Technologies program within the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy in areas of mutual interest, 
such as algae production.

                      COAL--CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

    The Committee recommends $412,000,000 for Coal Carbon 
Capture and Storage (CCS) and Power Systems, $19,664,000 above 
fiscal year 2014 and $134,593,000 above the budget request. The 
Committee notes the Department improperly requested $25,000,000 
for a natural gas carbon capture and storage demonstration 
project within the coal program; subprogram totals referenced 
within this report reflect that proposal as if it were made 
within the Natural Gas Technologies program. The Department is 
directed to use funds within the coal program only for coal 
research and development, with the exception of the 
Supercritical Transformational Electric Power Generation 
program, which has applications to all high-temperature fossil 
heat sources.
    The Committee encourages the Department to establish 
university partnerships to support ongoing fossil energy 
programs, to promote broader research into CCS technologies, 
and to expand its technology transfer efforts. The Department 
has previously funded several university-based CCS projects and 
can build on an established research base to support ongoing 
research and to address the wider implementation of CCS 
technologies.
    The Committee is aware that the Fossil Energy program 
supports research for all coal types, including lignite, which 
presents unique technical challenges due to its higher moisture 
content and lower heating value than other varieties of coal. 
The Committee encourages the Department to continue supporting 
projects that advance technology development for power sources 
that use lignite as a primary feedstock.
    Carbon Capture.--The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for 
Carbon Capture, $2,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$13,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $12,000,000 for pre-combustion 
capture systems and $78,000,000 for post-combustion capture 
systems, of which funding above the request is for additional 
support of bench-scale and pilot projects.
    Carbon Storage.--The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for 
Carbon Storage, $8,900,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$19,916,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $13,500,000 for Geologic Storage 
Technologies; $10,000,000 for Monitoring, Verification, 
Accounting, and Assessment; $2,000,000 for Carbon Use and 
Reuse; $8,500,000 for Carbon Sequestration Science; and 
$66,000,000 for Storage Infrastructure, of which not less than 
$6,000,000 is for additional support of enhanced oil recovery 
(EOR) technologies and projects, which can advance American 
industry and clean fossil energy power generation while 
increasing domestic oil production.
    The Committee encourages the Department to expand its 
support for carbon dioxide EOR technologies beyond the current 
scope and urges the Department to support the demonstration and 
deployment of promising, next-generation technologies at mature 
oil fields.
    Advanced Energy Systems.--The Committee recommends 
$107,000,000 for Advanced Energy Systems, $7,500,000 above 
fiscal year 2014 and $56,000,000 above the budget request. 
Within available funds, the recommendation provides $30,000,000 
for Advanced Combustion Systems, of which funding above the 
request is for additional support of pressure gain reduction, 
chemical looping, and pressurized combustion technologies and 
projects; $27,000,000 for Gasification Systems, of which 
$8,000,000 is for the Advanced Air Separation Program to 
continue activities improving advanced air separation 
technologies; $15,000,000 for Hydrogen Turbines; $5,000,000 for 
coal-biomass to liquids activities, which seek to produce 
liquid fuels from blends of domestic coal and biomass resources 
with reduced emissions and land and water use through 
integration of carbon capture and other technologies; and 
$30,000,000 for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, which have the 
potential to increase substantially the efficiency of clean 
coal power generation systems, to create new opportunities for 
the efficient use of natural gas, and to contribute 
significantly to the development of alternative-fuel vehicles.
    Crosscutting Research.--The Committee recommends 
$50,000,000 for Crosscutting Research, $8,075,000 above fiscal 
year 2014 and $14,708,000 above the budget request. Within 
available funds, the recommendation provides $25,000,000 for 
Coal Utilization Science; $1,500,000 for Energy Analyses; 
$3,900,000 for University Training and Research; and 
$18,500,000 for Plant Optimization Technologies, of which 
$5,000,000 is for the Advanced Ultrasupercritical Program to 
identify, test, qualify, and develop domestic suppliers capable 
of producing components from high temperature materials and 
$7,000,000 is for water management research and development.
    National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Coal Research 
and Development.--The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for NETL 
Coal Research and Development, $11,000 below fiscal year 2014 
and $15,969,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes 
that this program was funded within Program Direction prior to 
fiscal year 2012. The Department is directed to continue 
including in the budget request all full-time equivalent 
employee information within this program, as it does under 
Program Direction.
    The recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the Department 
to continue its activities to economically recover rare earth 
elements from coal and coal byproduct streams, such as fly ash, 
coal refuse, and aqueous effluents, pending the submission of 
findings on the feasibility of rare earth element recovery from 
coal and, if determined feasible, a multi-year research and 
development program as directed in House Report 113-135 and 
referenced by the fiscal year 2014 Act.
    Supercritical Transformational Electric Power (STEP) 
Generation Program.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 
within Fossil Energy for the STEP program, a joint initiative 
with the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Solar Energy program 
within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to 
spur the development of the necessary designs, materials, 
components, operation and control systems, sensors, and 
understanding and characterization for large-scale 
supercritical carbon dioxide power conversion.
    The supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle energy 
conversion system transforms heat energy through use of a 
supercritical fluid medium with no condensation rather than 
through steam and water and offers the possibility of higher 
cycle efficiency over steam turbines by increasing turbine 
inlet temperatures. Within the Fossil Energy program, higher 
inlet temperatures and materials development are already 
underway to develop ultrasupercritical steam turbines at 700 
degrees Celsius in conjunction with coal power plants. At this 
inlet temperature, the supercritical carbon dioxide cycle-based 
plant systems offer the potential for efficiency improvements 
of up to four percent compared to steam systems.
    The approach to develop supercritical carbon dioxide-based 
power conversion is crosscutting except for the difference in 
heat sources and, thus, the inlet temperatures expected. 
Currently, only fossil heat sources have achieved the desired 
high temperature inlet conditions necessary to achieve 
significant thermal efficiency gains afforded by supercritical 
carbon dioxide cycles. The Committee, therefore, has included 
$15,000,000 for the Office of Fossil Energy to support the 
technology development of supercritical carbon dioxide-based 
power conversion from fossil heat sources, as well as 
$10,000,000 for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy to support the technology development of supercritical 
carbon dioxide-based power conversion from solar energy. The 
Committee has also included direction within Nuclear Energy 
requiring the Department to ensure that a pilot demonstration 
project takes advantage of the current availability of high-
temperature fossil heat sources.

                        Natural Gas Technologies

    The Committee recommends $22,600,000 for Natural Gas 
Technologies, $2,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $37,400,000 
below the budget request.
    Research.--The Committee recommends $22,600,000 for Natural 
Gas Technologies Research. Within available funds, the 
recommendation provides $12,700,000 for research into the cost-
effective and responsible extraction of methane hydrates, a 
vast but currently inaccessible resource whose total energy 
reserves rival those from all other known fossil fuels 
combined; $5,200,000 for the Risk Based Data Management System; 
and $4,700,000 for midstream natural gas infrastructure 
research and development. The Committee directs that any 
funding for midstream natural gas infrastructure research and 
development be to enhance the deliverability efficiency of 
natural gas.
    Other than its support for the Risk Based Data Management 
System, the recommendation provides no funding for the joint 
research effort with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) into hydraulic 
fracturing technologies. The Committee notes the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2014 restricted certain fiscal year 2014 
funding for this collaborative research effort pending 
submission of a finalized interagency research plan to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate. The Department has not yet submitted this plan, 
which will allow the Committee to understand why the Department 
of Energy has allocated funding for this joint research effort 
the last two fiscal years despite no funding being allocated by 
the EPA and significantly reduced funding being allocated by 
the USGS. The Committee directs the Department to submit this 
plan as previously directed. The Committee further reiterates 
its previous direction that any funding in the area of 
hydraulic fracturing, including any funding to support the 
proposed joint effort with EPA and USGS, is for research into 
hydraulic fracturing technologies that aims both to improve the 
economics and recoverability of reserves and to address the 
health, safety, and environmental risks of shale gas 
extraction.
    Natural Gas Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration 
Project.--The recommendation includes no funding for a Natural 
Gas Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration project.

               UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

    The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for Unconventional 
Fossil Energy Technologies, $2,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 
and $13,000,000 above the budget request. Within available 
funds, the recommendation provides not less than $12,500,000 
for activities to improve the economic viability, safety, and 
environmental responsibility of offshore exploration and 
production in challenging conditions, of exploration and 
production from unconventional natural gas and other petroleum 
resources, and of production by small producers; and up to 
$500,000 for the Department to assess the technical landscape 
of scalable energy conversion technologies, such as gas-to-
liquid or solid-to-liquid conversions or electrical power 
generation, for use on unconventional and underutilized energy 
resources such as stranded, sour, and hindered gas; anaerobic 
digester wastes; small coal and waste coal streams; municipal 
treatment plants; and municipal solid waste. The Department is 
directed to report its findings to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
not later than six months after enactment of this Act.

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        19,950,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        19,950,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................           -50,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve 
the national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900's, 
and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1996 required the sale of the Government's interest 
in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR-1). To comply with this 
requirement, the Elk Hills field in California was sold to 
Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of 
Elk Hills, the transfer of the oil shale reserves, and transfer 
of administrative jurisdiction and environmental remediation of 
the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 (NPR-2) to the Department of the 
Interior, the Department retains one Naval Petroleum Reserve 
property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR-3) in Wyoming 
(Teapot Dome field). This is a stripper well oil field that the 
Department has maintained while it remained economically 
productive.
    The fiscal year 2015 budget request supports continued 
implementation of the disposition plan for NPR-3 as recommended 
in a June 2013 report. Fiscal year 2015 activities include 
disposal through competitive sale and continued environmental 
remediation.
    The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval 
petroleum and oil shale reserves is $19,950,000, $50,000 below 
fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request.

                      Elk Hills School Lands Fund


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................             - - -
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       $15,579,815
Recommended, 2015.....................................        15,579,815
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       +15,579,815
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    Payment to the State of California through the Elk Hills 
school lands fund was part of the settlement associated with 
the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 1 (NPR-1). Under 
the settlement, payments to the State are to total nine percent 
of the net proceeds of the sale. Payments to date have totaled 
$299,520,000. Final equity for the sale of NPR-1 was settled in 
fiscal year 2011, allowing the Department and the State to 
agree on the amount of a final payment.
    The Committee recommendation for the final payment is 
$15,579,815, the same as the budget request.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $189,400,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       205,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       205,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       +15,600,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to 
store petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a 
major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry 
out obligations under the international energy program. The 
capacity of the Reserve is 727 million barrels. The current 
inventory is approximately 691 million barrels or approximately 
111 days of net import protection for the United States 
economy. Operational activities, however, will leave 
approximately 59 million barrels unavailable for drawdown, 
thereby reducing the U.S. net import protection to 102 days. 
Additionally, damage at one storage tank reduces the drawdown 
rate to 4.25 million barrels per day from 4.4 million barrels 
per day.
    The Committee recommendation for the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is $205,000,000, $15,600,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
the same as the budget request. The funding increase above 
fiscal year 2014 is primarily for the major maintenance program 
to address aging infrastructure and the deferred maintenance 
backlog.
    In March 2014, the Department announced it would be 
conducting the first test drawdown and sale since 1990. This 
test sale of 5 million barrels was said to be necessary in 
light of significant changes in the system, including pipeline 
expansions, construction of new infrastructure, reversed flow 
of existing pipelines, and increased use of domestic crude oil 
terminals. The Committee looks forward to reviewing all 
information learned from this test sale once the Department's 
detailed explanation of the test, required by statute, is 
received. Based on original bids, the Department estimates as 
much as $495,000,000 in revenues from this test sale will be 
deposited in the SPR Petroleum Account.
    In May 2014, the Secretary announced, as part of the 
President's Climate Action Plan, the creation of the first 
federal regional refined petroleum product reserve. This 
reserve is to contain gasoline and be located in the Northeast 
United States. It is described as enabling a more secure and 
resilient energy infrastructure, building on lessons learned 
from Superstorm Sandy. Fuel acquisition and commercial storage 
service contracts for 4.5 years will be funded through the SPR 
Petroleum Account, using receipts from the March 2014 test 
sale. The Department has indicated it is conducting a series of 
regional fuel resiliency studies and, based on the results, may 
consider additional regional refined petroleum product 
reserves.
    The Committee acknowledges that a test drawdown sale may 
provide useful information in light of changes in the crude oil 
system. The Committee also acknowledges that the concept of 
regional refined petroleum product reserves may have merit and 
deserves further consideration. The timing of these 
announcements, the use of receipts from the test sale rather 
than appropriated funds, and the lack of prior consultation 
with the Congress, however, is extremely concerning.
    The SPR has been focused on creating and maintaining a 
supply of emergency crude oil. The Department's own web site 
explains that only crude oil is stored in the Reserve because 
``. . . in preparing the 1977 SPR Plan for development of the 
Reserve, an analysis of the U.S. refining industry indicated 
that the industry was robust and had the refining capacity to 
satisfy the major portion of the nation's demand for petroleum 
products. This continues to be true today--over 30 years later. 
The U.S. petroleum import dependency is overwhelmingly crude 
oil, not refined products. In addition, crude oil is cheaper to 
acquire, store and transport than refined products. Crude oil 
quality does not degrade over time as do refined products and 
crude oil provides flexibility in responding to fluctuations in 
refined product market needs; whereas, refined products are 
expensive to maintain and are subject to changes in 
specifications mandated by environmental legislation.'' To 
date, the Department has not provided any analysis to 
contradict this explanation or justify a change in course for 
the SPR.
    The Department has conceded that certain management and 
oversight functions associated with the newly announced 
regional reserve will need to be funded through the annual 
appropriations process. The Committee assumes that storage 
costs beyond the initial 4.5 years will need to be funded 
through the annual appropriations process also. Based on 
current estimates, these costs may represent an increase in 
funding requirements of 5 percent of the total SPR annual 
appropriation. For all these reasons, the creation of new 
regional refined petroleum product reserves constitutes 
significant policy and budgetary changes that the Department 
should have discussed with the Congress prior to making a 
public announcement and taking administrative action.
    The recommendation includes a general provision requiring 
the Department to provide the Committees on Appropriations of 
the House of Representatives and the Senate with advance 
notification of any test drawdown and sale or exchange of 
petroleum products from the SPR. The information required will 
enable the Committees to ensure that future test sales are 
conducted solely for the purpose of testing the drawdown and 
sales processes and not to generate funds outside the annual 
appropriations process for use by the Department for activities 
not specifically approved by the Congress.
    The general provision also prohibits the Department from 
using any funds remaining from revenues generated by the March 
2014 test sale for the purchase of any petroleum product other 
than crude oil, since that is the petroleum product that was 
sold. The Committee strongly believes the Congress must be a 
partner in such a significant policy and budgetary decision as 
expanding the location or types of petroleum product stored in 
the SPR. The Committee expects that if the Department completes 
regional fuel resiliency studies and determines that additional 
regional refined petroleum product reserves are advisable, then 
the Department will provide the analysis to the Congress, 
engage the appropriate committees in discussions over details, 
and include any necessary funding in subsequent budget 
requests.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve


                    (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................        $8,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................         1,600,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................         1,600,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -6,400,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the 
Northeast began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, 
through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded 
contracts for the lease of commercial storage facilities and 
acquisition of heating oil. The purpose of the reserve is to 
assure home heating oil supplies for the Northeastern States 
during times of very low inventories and significant threats to 
the immediate supply of heating oil. The Northeast Heating Oil 
Reserve was established as a separate entity from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The reserve contains one 
million barrels of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), with 
approximately one-half located in commercial facilities in 
Boston, Massachusetts and approximately one-half located in 
commercial facilities in Groton, Connecticut. This reserve is 
the equivalent of three to four days of emergency stocks in New 
England.
    The Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating 
Oil Reserve is $1,600,000, $6,400,000 below fiscal year 2014 
and the same as the budget request. After accounting for a 
rescission of $6,000,000 of prior-year unobligated balances in 
the recommendation and the use of $6,000,000 in prior-year 
balances in the budget request, the fiscal year 2015 program 
level is $400,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the 
budget request.

                   Energy Information Administration


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $117,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       122,500,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       120,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        +3,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................        -2,500,000
 

    The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-
independent agency within the Department of Energy established 
to provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related 
information to the Congress, the executive branch, state 
governments, industry, and the public. The Committee recommends 
$120,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration, 
$3,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $2,500,000 below the 
budget request.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $231,765,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       226,174,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       241,174,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        +9,409,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       +15,000,000
 

    Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup includes funds to manage 
and clean up sites used for civilian, energy research, and non-
defense related activities. These past activities resulted in 
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination that 
requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. The 
Committee recommends $241,174,000 for Non-Defense Environmental 
Cleanup, $9,409,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $15,000,000 
above the budget request. To the extent possible within 
available funds, the Department of Energy should take advantage 
of near-term opportunities to realize lifecycle cost savings by 
accelerating completion of ongoing small sites projects.
    Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $65,223,000, 
$5,981,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $5,000,000 above the 
budget request. Within funding for Small Sites, $5,000,000 is 
provided to clean up outstanding Department of Energy 
liabilities at the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for 
physical security upgrades at the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear 
Generating Station. Considering the growing cost of continuing 
to store these materials for which the Department has assumed 
responsibility, the Department is directed to provide to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate not later than December 1, 2014, a report that 
describes the costs of continuing to store spent nuclear fuel 
at Fort St. Vrain and the feasibility and costs of 
consolidating this material at another DOE site.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $598,823,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       530,976,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       585,976,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       -12,847,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       +55,000,000
 

    The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to pay 
for the cleanup of gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, 
Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and the East Tennessee Technology Park 
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee recommends $585,976,000 
for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, $12,847,000 below 
fiscal year 2014 and $55,000,000 above the budget request.
    Oak Ridge.--The Committee recommends $157,898,000, 
$38,092,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $20,000,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee commends the Department for its 
high level of performance in completing demolition of the K-25 
building and provides funding above the budget request to 
preserve momentum on completing cleanup work at the site.
    Paducah.--The Committee recommends $207,215,000, 
$58,005,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget 
request. The Committee is aware that the Department intends to 
carry over approximately $107,000,000 into fiscal year 2015 as 
a result of the delays in the turnover of the gaseous diffusion 
plant from the United States Enrichment Corporation. With the 
additional funds provided in this bill, the Department will 
have approximately $314,000,000 to conduct cleanup activities 
in fiscal year 2015. The Department is obligated to 
decommission and decontaminate the gaseous diffusion plant and 
other structures at the Paducah site in a timely fashion, but 
has done a poor job explaining its future cleanup plans to the 
Committee, stakeholders, and the public. The Committee does not 
support placing the gaseous diffusion plant in a cold and dark 
state. The Department is directed to submit to the Committees 
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate not later than 30 days after enactment a report that 
clearly describes the anticipated timeline for decontamination 
and decommissioning of the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant and 
that includes the Department's five-year projected cost and 
schedule planning assumptions for accomplishing work at the 
site.
    Portsmouth.--The Committee recommends $175,000,000, 
$37,387,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $15,000,000 above the 
budget request. Additional funds above the budget request are 
to compensate for reduced uranium barter proceeds anticipated 
by the continued depression of uranium market prices.
    Title X Uranium/Thorium Reimbursements.--The Committee 
recommends $20,000,000 to reimburse private licensees for the 
federal government's share of the cost of cleaning up uranium 
and thorium processing sites in accordance with Title X of the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992, $20,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 
and $20,000,000 above the budget request. The Department 
reports that it has $54,586,000 in approved but unpaid claim 
balances, but the Department has failed to provide plans for 
addressing these liabilities. These cleanup activities are 
important to the health and safety of a number of communities, 
and the recommendation provides funding above the budget 
request to reduce the backlog of outstanding claims. The 
Committee expects the Department to provide sufficient 
resources within future budget plans to reimburse licensees for 
approved claim balances.

                                Science


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................    $5,071,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................     5,111,155,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................     5,071,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       -40,155,000
 

    The Office of Science funds basic science research across 
national laboratories, universities, and other research 
institutions in support of American innovation and the 
Department's energy-focused missions. Through research in 
physics, biology, chemistry, and other science disciplines, 
these activities expand scientific understanding and secure the 
nation's leadership in energy innovation. The Office of Science 
funds a significant portion of science research nationwide.
    The Science program office includes Advanced Scientific 
Computing Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and 
Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy 
Physics, Nuclear Physics, Workforce Development for Teachers 
and Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Safeguards 
and Security, and Program Direction. The Committee has placed a 
high priority on funding these activities within the limited 
resources available in fiscal year 2015, given the private 
sector is not likely to fund research whose findings either 
have high non-commercial value or are not likely to be 
commercialized in the near- or medium-term. However, this work 
is vital to sustaining the scientific leadership of the United 
States and can provide the underpinnings for valuable 
intellectual property in the coming decades.
    The Committee recommendation is $5,071,000,000 for the 
Office of Science, the same as fiscal year 2014 and $40,155,000 
below the budget request.

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program develops 
and hosts some of the world's fastest computing and network 
capabilities to enable science and energy modeling, simulation, 
and research. The Committee recommends $541,000,000 for 
Advanced Scientific Computing Research, $62,407,000 above 
fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request.
    Exascale Computing.--The Committee continues to support the 
exascale initiative, which seeks to develop the next generation 
of computing systems three orders of magnitude faster than 
today's fastest systems. This decade-long effort is critical to 
enabling basic and energy-focused science research not 
previously possible and to maintaining the nation's global 
leadership in computing technologies. The recommendation 
includes the requested level of $91,000,000.
    High Performance Computing and Network Facilities.--In 
addition to the long-term exascale intiative, the Committee 
supports continued upgrade and operation of the Leadership 
Computing Facilities at Argonne and Oak Ridge National 
Laboratories and of the High Performance Production Computing 
capabilities at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These 
systems' capabilities are a critical component of science and 
industrial research and development across the nation, and they 
should be maintained as world-leading facilities. The 
recommendation includes the requested levels of $80,320,000 for 
the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility; $104,317,000 for the 
Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility; and $69,000,000 for 
the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
    All other activities within the Advanced Scientific 
Computing Research program are funded at the requested level.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Basic Energy Sciences program funds basic research in 
materials science, chemistry, geoscience, and bioscience. The 
science breakthroughs in this program enable a broad array of 
innovation in energy technologies and other industries critical 
to American economic competitiveness. The Committee recommends 
$1,702,000,000 for Basic Energy Sciences, $10,757,000 below 
fiscal year 2014 and $104,500,000 below the budget request.
    The program's budget consists of funding for research, the 
operation of existing user facilities, and the design, 
procurement, and construction of new facilities and equipment. 
The long-term success of the program hinges on striking a 
careful balance among these three areas. However, the 
increasing level of research commitments and completion of new 
facilities make it difficult to adequately fund all three 
components of the Basic Energy Sciences program within existing 
budgetary constraints. The Committee strongly cautions the 
Department against assuming an ever-increasing budget when 
planning the balance among facility runtime, construction, and 
research funding.
    Research.--The Committee recommends $1,574,000,000 for 
Basic Energy Sciences research, $36,757,000 below fiscal year 
2014 and $93,800,000 below the budget request. Within available 
funds, the recommendation provides $100,000,000 for Energy 
Frontier Research Centers.
    For materials science and engineering research, the 
recommendation includes $371,382,000, of which $10,000,000 is 
for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
and $8,000,000 is for Computational Materials Sciences. All 
other activities within this subprogram are funded at the 
requested level, including $24,175,000 for the third year of 
the Batteries and Energy Storage Innovation Hub.
    For chemical sciences, geosciences, and biosciences, the 
recommendation includes $291,280,000. The recommendation 
includes no funding for the Fuels from Sunlight Innovation Hub, 
which received its final year of funding for its initial five-
year award term in fiscal year 2014. The Committee notes the 
Department has made no decision for continued funding for the 
hub beyond the initial term, which ends in September 2015.
    For scientific user facilities, the recommendation includes 
$911,338,000, of which $32,168,000 is for research; $42,500,000 
is for major items of equipment; and $9,300,000 is for other 
projects costs. The recommendation includes $799,529,000 for 
facilities operations of the nation's synchrotron radiation 
light sources, high flux neutron sources, and nanoscale science 
research centers, of which $248,490,000 is for the High-Flux 
Neutron Sources to operate at optimal levels and $105,000,000 
is for the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at Brookhaven 
National Laboratory to transition from early operations to full 
operations during fiscal year 2015.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $128,000,000 for 
Basic Energy Sciences construction, $26,000,000 above fiscal 
year 2014 and $10,700,000 below the budget request. The 
recommendation supports the second year of construction funding 
for the revised LINAC Coherent Light Source II project to 
include the addition of a superconducting linear accelerator 
and additional undulators to generate an unprecedented high-
repetition-rate free-electron laser.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    The Biological and Environmental Research program supports 
advances in energy technologies and related science through 
research into complex biological and environmental systems. The 
Committee recommends $540,000,000 for Biological and 
Environmental Research, $70,196,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$88,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee continues to support the Biological Systems 
Science subprogram, which focuses on the biology of plant and 
microbes with the ultimate goal of enabling future generations 
of biofuels from a variety of sustainable domestic biomass 
sources. In addition to reducing our nation's dependence on 
petroleum-based fuels with chronically high prices, the 
biofuels produced through this program's science breakthroughs 
can lower the cost of, improve the sustainability of, and ease 
industry's transition to those fuel alternatives.
    The recommendation includes $75,000,000 for the third year 
of the second five-year term of the three Bioenergy Research 
Centers, the same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request. 
The recommendation includes no funding for the new Climate 
Model Development and Validation activity.
    Quickly advancing capabilities in high performance 
computing, informatics, data science and analysis, and 
simulation and modeling have a profound impact on scientific 
discovery and innovation. The Committee encourages the 
Biological Systems Science subprogram to leverage the 
computational, data, and informatics capabilities of the 
national laboratories, research universities, and other 
stakeholders to advance its biological mission, and to see that 
the benefits of these resources are accessible to a broad set 
of researchers.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports basic research 
and experimentation aiming to harness nuclear fusion for energy 
production. The Committee recommends $540,000,000 for Fusion 
Energy Sciences, $34,323,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$124,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides not less than $71,220,000 for the 
National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX); not less than 
$80,250,000 for DIII-D; and not less than $22,260,000 for 
Alcator C-Mod.
    Research.--The Committee recommends $315,000,000 for the 
domestic fusion program, $9,323,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$49,000,000 above the budget request. The domestic fusion 
program is a critical component of United States science 
leadership and a necessary building block of any successful 
fusion project, including the International Thermonuclear 
Experimental Reactor (ITER).
    For the science subprogram, which advances the predictive 
understanding of plasma confinement, dynamics, and interactions 
with surrounding materials, the recommendation provides 
$184,138,000, of which $35,500,000 is for DIII-D research; 
$8,000,000 is for Alcator C-Mod research; $11,545,000 is for 
international research; $28,500,000 is for NSTX research; 
$17,500,000 is for High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas; 
$25,170,000 is for theory; and $9,500,000 is for Scientific 
Discovery through Advanced Computing.
    For facilities operations, which support operation, 
maintenance, and modifications to the research equipment and 
diagnostics at the major U.S. fusion facilities, the 
recommendation provides $103,855,000, of which $44,750,000 is 
for DIII-D; $38,250,000 is for NSTX operations; $3,470,000 is 
for the NSTX upgrade project; and $14,260,000 is for Alcator C-
Mod.
    For enabling research and development, which develops and 
continually improves the hardware, materials, and technology 
incorporated into existing and next-generation fusion research 
facilities, the recommendation provides $27,007,000, of which 
$13,597,000 is for Materials Research.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $225,000,000 for 
the U.S. contribution to the ITER project, $25,000,000 above 
fiscal year 2014 and $75,000,000 above the budget request. 
Within available funds, the recommendation provides not less 
than $200,000,000 for in-kind hardware contributions and up to 
$25,000,000 for cash contributions to the ITER Organization. 
The recommendation continues a reprogramming control point for 
the ITER project, as well as bill language restricting cash 
contributions to the ITER Organization pending implementation 
of the Third Biennial International Organization Management 
Assessment Report recommendations.
    The Committee continues its support for a robust fusion 
program and believes ITER to be an important international 
collaboration that represents a major step forward for the 
fusion energy sciences. However, the Committee is alarmed by 
the breadth of the findings in the latest management assessment 
report and dismayed that the main challenge for the project 
remains its management, rather than the science and technology 
of the experiment itself. The Committee interprets the 
collection of these shortfalls as a serious threat to the 
ultimate success of the project. The Committee will not 
tolerate lower project management standards for scientific 
experiments conducted outside of the U.S. compared to those 
conducted inside of the U.S., particularly those that result in 
cost overruns, lengthy delays, and unrealistic schedules.
    Nevertheless, if successful, the ITER project continues to 
represent a significant leap forward towards the ultimate goal 
of a prototype commercial fusion reactor. It has the support of 
35 countries and seven member organizations, of which the U.S. 
is responsible for approximately nine percent of the total cost 
and in-kind hardware contributions. It remains the most 
practical U.S. investment in the fusion energy sciences, 
pending implementation of the management assessment reforms. 
The Committee strongly supports the recent efforts of the ITER 
Council to adopt the latest management assessment 
recommendations and, by the summer of 2015, to adopt a 
realistic schedule and funding profile for the ITER project 
among all member nations. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee 
includes funding to allow the ITER Council the time it needs to 
implement these recommendations as soon as practicable. Should 
the ITER Council fail in its attempts to create a strong 
project culture within the ITER Organization, the Committee 
questions whether the project can succeed as a scientific 
experiment and, as such, will be forced to reconsider its 
support for the international project.
    The Committee is discouraged by the Department's budget 
request of $150,000,000 for ITER, of which $110,000,000 is for 
in-kind hardware contributions and $40,000,000 is for cash 
contributions. If adopted, the request would only serve to 
extend the timeline of the project by six months to two years 
and result in cost overruns--both for U.S. in-kind hardware 
contributions and the U.S. share of the ITER Organization--for 
no apparent reason. This is not a fiscally responsible 
proposal. According to the Department's latest cost estimate of 
the ITER project, which was submitted before the fiscal year 
2015 budget request, the U.S. share to reach first plasma--the 
primary major milestone on the path to total project 
completion--is $2,751,885,000, with the total U.S. share of 
construction, operating and decommissioning costs at 
$3,900,000,000 excluding contingency funding. The 
recommendation supports the Department's latest estimate to 
meet the U.S. obligations to first plasma by 2023.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    The High Energy Physics program supports fundamental 
research into the elementary constituents of matter and energy, 
and ultimately into the nature of space and time. The program 
focuses on particle physics theory and experimentation in three 
areas: the energy frontier, which investigates new particles 
and fundamental forces through high-energy experimentation; the 
intensity frontier, which focuses on rare events to better 
understand our fundamental model of the universe's elementary 
constituents; and the cosmic frontier, which investigates the 
nature of the universe and its form of matter and energy on 
cosmic scales. The Committee recommends $775,000,000 for High 
Energy Physics, $22,521,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$31,000,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee notes that the high energy physics research 
community is currently engaged in developing a ten-year plan 
for U.S. particle physics, which will include a ten-year report 
by the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel under 
various budget scenarios. The Committee applauds the Department 
for this undertaking and continues to support a clearly 
articulated vision under realistic budget scenarios for each of 
the Science programs. The Committee encourages the Department 
to make modifications to its high energy physics fiscal year 
2015 budget request as necessary based on the findings of this 
multi-step planning process.
    The Department is directed to submit to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act a work plan 
that would advance second-generation dark matter direct 
detection experiments, stage four cosmic microwave background 
experiments, and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument.
    Within available funds, the recommendation includes 
$22,000,000 for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) 
and its alternatives, to include $10,000,000 for research and 
development and $12,000,000 for project engineering and design 
activities. The recommendation includes no funding for long-
lead procurements or construction activities for the LBNE 
project. The Committee recognizes the importance of this 
project to maintaining American leadership in the intensity 
frontier and to basic science discovery of neutrino and 
standard model physics. However, the Committee also recognizes 
that LBNE construction must be affordable under existing 
budgetary constraints.
    The recommendation also includes $23,000,000 to support 
Superconducting Radio Frequency Accelerator research and 
development, as well as facilities and infrastructure.
    Research.--The Committee recommends $738,000,000 for High 
Energy Physics research, $8,521,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$19,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation 
rejects the Department's proposal to reduce core research 
funding by three percent and instead restores funding for all 
affected activities.
    For energy frontier experimental physics, the 
recommendation provides $157,888,000. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $15,000,000 for two new major items 
of equipment, consisting of $7,500,000 for the A Large Toroidal 
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Apparatus Detector Upgrade and 
$7,500,000 for the LHC Compact Muon Solenoid Detector Upgrade.
    For intensity frontier experimental physics, the 
recommendation provides $266,691,000. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $52,946,000 for research; 
$179,775,000 for facility operations and experimental support, 
of which $156,796,000 is for Fermi Complex Operations and 
$15,000,000 is for Homestake Mine; and $33,970,000 for 
projects, of which $13,000,000 is for the Muon g-2 Experiment 
and $10,000,000 is for Future Projects research and 
development.
    For cosmic frontier experimental physics, the 
recommendation provides $103,056,000. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $50,364,000 for research; 
$11,692,000 for facility operations and experimental support; 
and $41,000,000 for projects, of which $35,000,000 is for the 
Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Camera and $6,000,000 is for 
the Second Generation Dark Matter experiments, to include 
$2,000,000 for design activities as a major item of equipment.
    For other subprograms that comprise the high energy physics 
program, the recommendation provides $60,670,000 for 
theoretical and computational physics; $125,076,000 for 
advanced technology research and development, of which 
$54,736,000 is for General Accelerators; and $3,000,000 for 
accelerator stewardship.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $37,000,000 for 
High Energy Physics construction, $14,000,000 below fiscal year 
2014 and $12,000,000 above the budget request. Within available 
funds, the recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the Muon to 
Electron Conversion Experiment.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The Nuclear Physics program supports basic research into 
the fundamental particles that compose nuclear matter, how they 
interact, and how they combine to form the different types of 
matter observed in the universe today. The Committee recommends 
$600,000,000 for Nuclear Physics, $30,062,000 above fiscal year 
2014 and $6,427,000 above the budget request.
    Operations and Maintenance.--The Committee recommends 
$493,500,000 for Nuclear Physics operations and maintenance, 
$4,062,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $6,427,000 above the 
budget request. For medium energy nuclear physics, the 
recommendation provides $153,842,000, of which $100,000,000 is 
for operations at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator 
Facility to support up to 27 weeks of runtime at the 12 GeV 
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility. For heavy ion 
nuclear physics, the recommendation provides $201,466,000, of 
which $167,572,000 is for operations at Brookhaven National Lab 
to support 22 weeks of runtime at the Relativistic Heavy Ion 
Collider. All activities within the low energy nuclear physics, 
nuclear theory, and isotope development and production for 
research and applications subprograms are funded at the 
requested level.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $106,500,000 for 
Nuclear Physics construction, $26,000,000 above fiscal year 
2014 and the same as the request. The recommended level of 
funding includes the requested level of $90,000,000 for the 
Facility for Rare Isotope Beams.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................             - - -
Budget estimate, 2015.................................             - - -
Recommended, 2014.....................................      $150,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................      +150,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................      +150,000,000
 

    The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for 
Nuclear Waste Disposal, $150,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$150,000,000 above the budget request, to continue the 
Department of Energy's statutorily required activities for the 
Yucca Mountain license application. Within available funds, the 
Department is directed to reestablish its organizations to 
respond to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during its 
adjudicatory process, and to otherwise fully support the Yucca 
Mountain licensing process.
    While the Committee notes that some of the recommendations 
within the Administration's Strategy for the Management and 
Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 
may have merit, Congress has neither formally considered nor 
approved them. In addition, the implementation of many of the 
recommendations would require changes to authorizing statutes. 
Nuclear waste disposal is too complex of an issue for the 
Administration to unilaterally develop or implement policy, and 
the Committee encourages the Administration to take this into 
account while formulating its fiscal year 2016 budget request.
    The Committee reiterates that the Administration's repeated 
statements that Yucca Mountain is not a ``workable option'' 
ignores both the support of the host community and the 
expressed intent of Congress.

               Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $280,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       325,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       280,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       -45,000,000
 

    The Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) 
supports research aimed at rapidly developing energy 
technologies whose development and commercialization are too 
risky to attract sufficient private sector investment but are 
capable of significantly changing the energy sector to address 
our critical economic and energy security challenges. Projects 
funded by ARPA-E include such wide-ranging areas as production 
processes for transportation fuel alternatives that can reduce 
our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling 
technologies with exceptionally high energy efficiency, and 
improvements in petroleum refining processes.
    The Committee recommends $280,000,000 for the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency--Energy, the same as fiscal year 2014 
and $45,000,000 below the budget request. Within available 
funds, the recommendation provides $28,000,000 for Program 
Direction.

         Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program


                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        42,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        42,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

                         OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $-22,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       -25,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       -25,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        +3,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

                           NET APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        17,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        17,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -3,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Committee recommends administrative expenses of 
$42,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and the same as the 
budget request, which are offset by fees collected pursuant to 
section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act, for a final net 
appropriation of $17,000,000.
    The Committee is concerned about the credit review, 
compliance, and reporting functions that the Department has in 
place to adequately monitor risk. The Department is directed to 
provide a report to the Committee not later than 60 days after 
enactment of this Act evaluating the effectiveness of the 
Department's portfolio monitoring and risk management efforts. 
This report is to also include a plan for fully complying with 
its credit review, compliance, and reporting functions.

        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................        $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................         4,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................         4,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -2,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
established a direct loan program to support the development of 
advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the 
United States. The program provides loans to automobile and 
automobile part manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, 
expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the 
United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or 
qualified components, and for associated engineering 
integration costs.
    The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the Advanced 
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $2,000,000 
below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. The 
funds provided support administrative operations only.

                         Clean Coal Technology


                    (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................             - - -
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       $-6,600,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        -6,600,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -6,600,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Clean Coal Technology Program was established in 1985 
to perform commercial-scale demonstrations of advanced coal-
based technologies. All projects within this program have 
concluded and only closeout activities remain. The fiscal year 
2015 budget request proposes to cancel $6,600,000 in 
unobligated balances in this account. For fiscal year 2015, the 
Committee recommends a rescission of $6,600,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                      Departmental Administration


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $234,637,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       248,223,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       255,171,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       +20,534,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................         6,948,000
 

                                REVENUES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................     $-108,188,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................      -119,171,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................      -119,171,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       -10,983,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

                           NET APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $126,449,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       129,052,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       136,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        +9,551,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................         6,948,000
 

    The Committee recommendation for Departmental 
Administration is $255,171,000, $20,534,000 above fiscal year 
2014 and $6,948,000 above the budget request. The 
recommendation for revenues is $119,171,000 as requested, 
resulting in a net appropriation of $136,000,000. Funding 
recommended for Departmental Administration provides for 
general management and program support functions benefiting all 
elements of the Department of Energy, including the National 
Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array 
of Headquarters activities not directly associated with the 
execution of specific programs.
    Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.--The 
recommendation includes $4,700,000, $1,600,000 less than the 
request.
    International Affairs.--The Committee is aware the 
Department of Energy is examining the potential for leveraging 
its expertise in support of energy-related issues in Ukraine. 
The Department is directed to report to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
not later than July 30, 2014, on what appropriate technical 
assistance the Department could provide in support of U.S. 
foreign assistance through the State Department.
    Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.--The Committee 
recommends $16,000,000, $16,000,000 above the budget request, 
to coordinate and implement energy management, conservation, 
education, and delivery systems for Native Americans. The 
Committee includes full funding for the Department's request in 
this account rather than in a new account, as requested.
    Office of Human Capital.--The recommendation includes 
$24,500,000 for the Office of Human Capital, $900,000 below the 
budget request.
    Minority Economic Impact.--The recommendation includes 
$2,800,000 for Minority Economic Impact, $1,127,000 above the 
budget request.
    Office of Management.--The recommendation includes 
$67,352,000 for the Office of Management, $941,000 below the 
budget request.
    Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis.--The 
recommendation includes $31,181,000, $7,364,000 below the 
budget request. The Committee includes requested funding to 
support the development of the Quadrennial Energy Review. If 
the Department wishes to pursue activities related to grid 
modernization and consumer energy consumption, the Committee 
will consider funding for those projects in the appropriate 
program accounts. Until then, these activities should continue 
in the program accounts where they have been traditionally 
funded.
    Use of Prior-Year Balances.--The recommendation includes 
the use of $4,205,000 in prior-year balances, as requested.

                    Office of the Inspector General


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $42,120,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        39,868,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        42,120,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................        +2,252,000
 

    The Office of the Inspector General performs agency-wide 
audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and 
correct management and administrative deficiencies that create 
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, 
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and 
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections 
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the 
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and 
operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
    The budget request proposes the use of $10,420,000 in 
prior-year balances to offset fiscal year 2015 needs. While the 
recommendation does not direct the use of specific prior-year 
balances, the Office of the Inspector General should ensure it 
is effectively managing its prior-year funds and is using those 
balances to fully support its mission in fiscal year 2015.
    The Committee recommendation is $42,120,000, the same as 
fiscal year 2014 and $2,252,000 above the budget request.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

    The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the 
Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) consist of Weapons Activities, Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the 
Administrator; outside of the NNSA, these include Defense 
Environmental Management and Other Defense Activities. 
Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below.

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

    The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. 
national security through the military application of nuclear 
technology and reducing the global danger from the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The NNSA, a semi-
autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these 
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title 
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000, the NNSA is responsible for the management and operation 
of the nation's nuclear weapons complex, naval reactors, and 
nuclear nonproliferation activities. The Office of the NNSA 
Administrator oversees all NNSA programs.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--The fiscal 
year 2014 Act updated the percentage of funds that the 
Secretary could authorize for laboratory directed research and 
development (LDRD). It has come to the attention of the 
Committee that the NNSA is considering allowing some NNSA 
laboratories to charge as much as 7.75 percent to DOE programs 
in fiscal year 2014 because it has interpreted the statutory 
cap to apply to the total operating budget of the laboratory, 
which includes additional amounts received from Work For Others 
(WFO). The bill contains a general provision which clarifies 
congressional intent that no greater than the statutory cap, 
established at 6 percent in the fiscal year 2014 Act, shall be 
charged to any individual DOE activity for LDRD. The provision 
should not be interpreted to limit the ability of the national 
laboratories to charge LDRD to WFO or to conflict with the 
Department's policy to charge the same LDRD percentage that is 
authorized for DOE programs to WFO customers.
    The Committee is concerned that the LDRD funds derived from 
cleanup work performed by the Office of Environmental 
Management do not sufficiently benefit the cleanup mission of 
the Department. The Department must provide additional 
information on the use of these funds to better justify to the 
Committee why cleanup funds should continue to be charged for 
LDRD.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department is not 
accurately representing the size and nature of individual LDRD 
projects in the annual LDRD report to Congress. To improve 
reporting, the Department is directed to include the total 
amount of funding awarded to each LDRD project if that LDRD 
project is a multi-year award and to identify all major items 
of equipment and real property assets to be funded by any LDRD 
project, consistent with other Committee reporting requirements 
for multi-year grants, minor construction, and capital 
equipment.
    Overpayments into the NNSA's Contractor Defined Benefit 
Pension Plans.--The budget request includes more than 
$400,000,000 to avoid potential future costs predicted in the 
NNSA's latest out-year projections for its contractor defined 
benefit pension plans. These additional payments represent 
amounts that are above requirements established by the Congress 
in the Pension Protection Act and other applicable legislation. 
Defined benefit pension costs are highly dependent on market 
conditions and the Department's ability to accurately predict 
payments several years in advance is inherently limited. With 
emergent national security needs such as the recovery of the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and time-sensitive 
modernization plans at risk, the actual needs today outweigh 
the hypothetical future benefits of overpayment. None of the 
funds for the NNSA shall be available to make contractor 
defined benefit pension payments above requirements in fiscal 
year 2015 if those payments would result in a funded status in 
excess of 100 percent. This direction shall not be interpreted 
to permit the Department to transfer funds already contributed 
to a pension plan or reduce payments into any contractor 
employee pension plan below statutory or contractual 
requirements. The recommendation contains a provision that 
allows the Secretary of Energy to transfer up to $120,000,000 
of NNSA funds that are requested for payments above 
requirements to meet the needs of WIPP recovery. These funds 
shall be proportionally derived according to the normal 
distribution of pension costs for the NNSA, with 75 percent of 
the total amount to be derived from Weapons Activities and 25 
percent of the total amount to be derived from Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation.

                           Weapons Activities


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................    $7,781,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................     8,314,902,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................     8,204,209,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................      +423,209,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................      -110,693,000
 

    Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety, 
security, reliability, and effectiveness of the nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile. The activities funded under this 
appropriation include the maintenance and refurbishment of 
nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their security, 
safety, and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium 
and arms reduction treaties. The Committee recommends a fiscal 
year 2015 program level of $8,204,209,000 for Weapons 
Activities, $423,209,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$110,693,000 below the budget request.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that 
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including 
maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification, 
dismantlement, and disposal activities. The Committee 
recommends $2,696,960,000 for Directed Stockpile Work, 
$254,927,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $49,644,000 below the 
budget request.
    Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends full 
funding for the NNSA's life extension programs (LEPs), 
including the ongoing refurbishment efforts for the B61, W76, 
and W88. The recommendation includes $17,018,000 for a new life 
extension study for the cruise missile warhead, $7,600,000 
above the budget request.
    In response to the reporting requirements in the fiscal 
year 2014 Act, the NNSA has provided a detailed analysis of its 
alternatives for extending the life of the B61 and has 
certified to the Committee that the less costly alternatives 
that were originally considered do not address the needs for 
extending the life of the B61. Rather, pursuing a more limited 
near-term scope would drive up costs considerably due to the 
successive updates that would still be needed to extend the 
life of the B61 to an extent comparable to the W76-1. The 
NNSA's analysis also showed that the cost of the B61 LEP is 
much higher than the cost of the W76-1 largely due to the 
complexity of the B61's nonnuclear components. While the 
Committee supports continued full funding for the B61 LEP, the 
high cost of the program will continue to exert significant 
pressure on the NNSA's budget. The process of conducting a 
comprehensive analysis of alternatives, informed by 
independently-verified cost estimates, must be incorporated 
into the NNSA's normal way of doing business. The bill contains 
an updated provision that permanently establishes a requirement 
to conduct a comprehensive analysis of alternatives as part of 
all future life extension programs. The NNSA is directed to 
provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate not later than 30 days after 
enactment of this Act a report that describes the interagency 
plan for revising and updating its joint Phase 6.x warhead 
acquisition process to ensure these improvements are formalized 
and integrated into future life extension programs.
    Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.--The Committee 
recommends $54,264,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and 
$24,256,000 above the budget request. The NNSA continues to cut 
funding for dismantlement in its budget request, despite a 
clear requirement to continue to dismantle warheads, sustain 
production line capacity, and harvest materials for recycling 
to meet stockpile needs.
    Research and Development Certification and Safety.--The 
Committee recommends $154,508,000, $3,375,000 above fiscal year 
2014 and $46,971,000 below the budget request. No funding is 
provided for technology maturation or exploratory development 
activities, the same as in fiscal year 2014. It is essential 
that the NNSA establish dedicated funding to conduct 
Significant Finding Investigations and respond to stockpile 
issues, rather than continuing to fund technology maturation 
and exploratory development activities within Stockpile 
Services in an effort to distribute funding for these 
activities across multiple control points.
    Tritium Readiness.--The Committee recommends $138,053,000, 
$58,053,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $2,000,000 below the 
budget request. The recommendation includes a one-time increase 
for the purchase of low enriched uranium to fuel multiple 
reactors. No funds shall be available for the NNSA to enter 
into a future agreement to supply low enriched fuel to reactors 
that are not being actively used for tritium production.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons 
laboratories, the Nevada National Security Site, the weapons 
production plants, and selected external organizations to 
address critical capabilities needed to achieve program 
objectives. For Campaigns, the Committee recommends 
$1,726,989,000, $68,662,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$114,358,000 below the budget request.
    Science.--The Committee recommends $395,091,000, 
$25,368,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $61,339,000 below the 
budget request. The recommendation provides a substantial 
increase for a robust experimental effort in fiscal year 2015 
to better understand the properties of plutonium and ensure the 
NNSA can support certification requirements for pit reuse as an 
option for future LEPs. The recommendation includes full 
funding for Primary Assessment Technologies to expand 
predictive science capabilities to enhance U.S. capabilities to 
assess foreign state weapons activities. The recommendation 
includes no funding for new radiography capabilities at U1a 
within Advanced Radiography. The NNSA has outstanding reporting 
requirements related to its scaled experiments program and must 
be able to provide a clear and direct linkage to stockpile 
needs if additional radiography capabilities are needed.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield.--The Committee 
recommends $511,993,000, $1,964,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$902,000 below the budget request. Within these funds, 
$68,000,000 is for the OMEGA Laser Facility at the University 
of Rochester and $328,500,000 is for the National Ignition 
Facility.
    Readiness.--The Committee previously directed the NNSA to 
eliminate the Readiness Campaign and provides no funding in 
fiscal year 2015, $125,909,000 below the budget request. The 
recommendation includes funding requested for these and related 
activities under Advanced Manufacturing as described below.
    Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends 
$93,900,000 to develop, demonstrate, and utilize advanced 
technologies that are needed to enhance the NNSA's secure 
manufacturing capabilities and ensure timely support for the 
production of nuclear weapons and other critical national 
security components. The NNSA has requested funding for a 
variety of manufacturing development-related projects under 
Readiness Campaign, Recapitalization, Material Recycle and 
Recovery, and Directed Stockpile Work. The Committee recommends 
consolidating funding for these related activities within 
Campaigns because these development efforts represent more 
focused programmatic investments that have the potential to 
shorten production schedules, reduce risks, enhance personnel 
safety, and ultimately improve the NNSA's ability to meet its 
production requirements on time and within budget.
    Development funds within Advanced Manufacturing shall be 
limited to low technology readiness levels, whereas production 
engineering that is at a sufficient maturity level as to be 
associated with a particular LEP or project should be planned 
and executed within funds for that LEP or project. Development 
activities that are related to a construction project should be 
fully incorporated into that project's performance baseline at 
Critical Decision-2.
    The NNSA has yet to close out recommendations from a 2009 
Government Accountability Office report that attributed the 
significant cost growth for the W76 LEP to the NNSA's failure 
to plan for manufacturing of a critical material used in the 
W76. In addition, the Government Accountability Office recently 
investigated the NNSA's manufacturing technology maturation 
efforts for the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) and 
identified numerous risks in developing and integrating new 
production technologies. The Committee is seriously concerned 
that the NNSA has failed to integrate its technology 
development requirements with its major construction plans and 
has primarily funded UPF technology development from plant-
directed research and development, which should not be used to 
meet programmatic needs. These production technologies remain 
at low technology readiness levels and will require dedicated 
funding to ensure they are sufficiently mature prior to 
selection in the UPF project to reduce technology-related 
risks.
    Within funds for Advanced Manufacturing, the recommendation 
includes $12,600,000 for development of Additive Manufacturing 
technologies that will support secure stockpile production 
needs, including $2,100,000 for a secure additive manufacturing 
machine at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The 
recommendation includes $60,000,000 for Component Manufacturing 
Development for development activities requested within the 
Readiness Campaign. The recommendation includes $21,300,000 for 
Processing Technology Development to develop and demonstrate 
new production technologies and ensure new technologies reach 
optimal levels of maturity prior to critical project and 
program acquisition milestones. Within Processing Technology 
Development, the recommendation includes $5,000,000 for Direct 
Electrolytic Reduction, $2,000,000 for Enriched Uranium Salt 
Synthesis, $7,800,000 for the Y-12 Calciner, and $6,500,000 for 
Y-12 Electrorefiners, as requested within the budget request 
for Recapitalization and Material Recycle and Recovery.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) provides 
funding for the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization 
of NNSA facilities and infrastructure. The Committee recommends 
$2,045,962,000 for RTBF, $21,463,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$9,559,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee takes a dim view of the NNSA's prioritization 
of its infrastructure needs in its fiscal year 2015 budget 
request. The NNSA historically has failed to adequately fund 
its facility maintenance and recapitalization needs. The NNSA's 
budget request proposes to defer ten percent of its 
preventative maintenance planned at each of its eight sites, 
activities that are critical to ensure long term sustainment 
and viability of the infrastructure. At the same time, the 
budget request proposes to start two new projects that together 
will cost approximately $65,000,000 in order to replace 
emergency operations facilities that are not yet beyond their 
useful lifetimes. Meanwhile, buildings are literally falling 
apart elsewhere in the complex and the NNSA has yet to request 
project funding to address those safety and security needs. The 
Committee will continue to prioritize infrastructure funding 
within Weapons Activities to address the backlog of facilities 
operating beyond their useful lifetimes and to ensure that 
legacy facilities can be operated safely and securely.
    Maintenance and Repair of Facilities.--The Committee 
recommends $227,000,000, $591,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$22,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee is 
disappointed that the NNSA continues to undercut maintenance 
and repair in its budget request. The recommendation includes 
funding above the request to restore overall maintenance and 
repair funding to the fiscal year 2014 level. Within this 
amount, $10,000,000 is provided to address immediate health and 
safety issues at the NNSA Albuquerque Complex while the NNSA 
reexamines its long-term recapitalization plans using line-item 
project funds as directed below.
    Recapitalization.--The Committee recommends $224,600,000, 
$44,600,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $15,279,000 above the 
budget request. Despite instructions to submit a project list 
in the budget request, the NNSA was able to provide details on 
only a portion of its Recapitalization funds. In addition, the 
NNSA was considerably late in providing an accounting of its 
use of fiscal year 2014 funds and did not provide sufficient 
detail in its report. The Committee requires considerably 
better planning and reporting from the NNSA to ensure that it 
will efficiently execute funds for the highest priority 
projects. As a result, the Committee will designate funding for 
specific recapitalization projects until the NNSA can 
demonstrate it has made improvement in its infrastructure 
planning processes. The NNSA shall allocate Recapitalization 
funds according to the table that follows. To the extent 
possible, the recommendation provides full funding for small 
sized projects, instead of funding those projects over multiple 
years as in the budget request. The recommendation includes 
$23,400,000 for advanced manufacturing projects within the 
Advanced Manufacturing Campaign, instead of within 
Recapitalization as requested. Including the shift of those 
projects, the Committee's recommendation for recapitalization-
related projects totals $248,000,000, which represents a 
substantial investment to sustain and modernize the NNSA's 
nuclear security enterprise.


    Albuquerque Complex Upgrades.--The Committee recommends 
$12,000,000 for recapitalization of the NNSA's federal complex 
at Albuquerque, rather than $19,900,000 to lease new space 
under Office of the Administrator as in the budget request. 
Twenty years of deferred maintenance with no major upgrades has 
resulted in deteriorating conditions at the Albuquerque 
Complex. The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has failed to 
take any action to sustain its existing infrastructure and has 
instead made a decision to lease commercial space that does not 
provide the best value to the government, does not take 
responsibility for ultimate disposition of the existing 
infrastructure, and will introduce security vulnerabilities and 
operational inefficiencies by locating secure federal functions 
off-site.
    The NNSA's previous efforts to address these 
recapitalization needs resulted in an overbuilt and 
unaffordable big-box design that did not leverage the ability 
to use existing facilities that are not yet beyond their useful 
life and that prioritized goals for obtaining energy efficiency 
savings over the need to provide clean and safe facilities for 
its workers. In addition, the NNSA inappropriately eliminated 
an option to construct several smaller stand-alone facilities 
early on in its analysis. The Committee directs the NNSA to 
undertake a new analysis of alternatives using an expedited red 
team approach to develop a more cost-effective solution that 
might accelerate delivery of the NNSA's most immediate and 
pressing federal space needs. In conducting this analysis, the 
NNSA is directed to make use of recent Government 
Accountability Office workspace utilization studies. These 
studies suggest ways for federal agencies to efficiently and 
effectively minimize the square footage usage per person and 
achieve savings significantly below the 220 square foot per 
person assumed in the NNSA's analysis of its space needs, which 
is considerably greater than the prevailing standard workspace 
average of 190 square feet per person.
    15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000, the same as the budget request, to 
construct a new facility that will address seismic and safety 
deficiencies identified by the DOE Office of Health, Safety and 
Security.
    12-D-301 TRU Waste Facilities, LANL.--The Committee 
recommends no funding, $6,938,000 below the budget request. The 
budget request is to provide additional contingency funds for 
the project, which the NNSA estimates at 25 percent of the 
total construction costs. The Committee will consider a request 
for additional contingency funds for the project in future 
years if performance on the project indicates that the 
estimated contingency amount is actually needed.
    06-D-141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12.--The Committee 
recommends $335,000,000, $26,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
the same as the budget request. No funding shall be available 
for site preparation or facility construction until the NNSA 
achieves 90 percent design completion for the entire project. 
The Committee supports the Department's decision to move 
forward with a more affordable alternative for the project that 
would expedite the NNSA's plans to move out of Building 9212.
    04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) 
Replacement Project, LANL.--The Committee recommends 
$35,700,000, instead of providing funds for these activities 
under Program Readiness as in the budget request. This approach 
is consistent with the Committee's previous direction to the 
NNSA to carry out all CMR replacement activities in accordance 
with DOE Order 413.3B, rather than within operations funding 
where there is little transparency or accountability for 
delivering these activities on time and within budget. While 
the capacity and amount of process equipment needed may be 
evolving due to changing programmatic requirements for 
plutonium, the scope of the additional work being requested is 
consistent with the original mission need to provide analytic 
chemistry and material characterization space in a different 
facility than the legacy CMR building. Similarly, PF-4 
reconfiguration activities are also appropriate to be conducted 
as part of the original CMR Replacement project so long as they 
are limited to re-equipping lab space for capabilities that 
were previously housed in the legacy CMR building. Construction 
of new modular facilities and installation of equipment within 
PF-4 to establish enhanced pit production capabilities are not 
sufficiently related to the original mission need of the 
existing project, and the Committee does not support the 
inclusion of these activities as subprojects within the 
existing CMR replacement project.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Office of Secure Transportation Asset provides for the 
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear 
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military 
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the 
United States. The Committee recommends $219,000,000 for Secure 
Transportation Asset, $9,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$14,813,000 below the budget request.
    The reduction below the budget request is due to excessive 
prior-year balances in program direction. In addition, the NNSA 
has not provided sufficiently detailed acquisition plans for 
the Mobile Guardian Transporter and its vehicle and tractor 
fleet. The NNSA is directed to provide to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act an 
acquisition plan that details the number of transporters, 
replacement vehicles, and tractors to be procured, according to 
a five-year cost and schedule baseline.

               NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

    The NNSA Office of Emergency Operations responds to and 
mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide in order 
to defend the nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism. The 
Committee recommends $202,940,000 for Nuclear Counterterrorism 
Incident Response (NCTIR), $25,303,000 below fiscal year 2014 
and $29,500,000 above the budget request. Within this amount, 
the recommendation includes $25,000,000 for Render Safe, 
disablement, and other emergency response-related research and 
development activities that traditionally have been funded 
within Weapons Activities, $25,000,000 above the budget 
request; $142,577,000 for emergency response activities, 
$3,500,000 above the budget request, to fully support the NNSA 
costs of the ninth stabilization city as part of its joint 
program with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and 
$14,850,000 for Operations Support, $3,000,000 above the 
request, to address improvements needed to ensure the 
functionality of the Department of Energy's Operations Center.
    The Committee is concerned that the nation's emergency 
response capabilities necessary to respond to domestic nuclear 
incidents are not being appropriately funded because the NNSA 
has prioritized expansion of counterproliferation-related 
activities that are driven by international cooperative nuclear 
security and other nonproliferation goals. To address gaps in 
the NNSA's support of counterproliferation and other 
cooperative nuclear security missions, the NNSA created the 
Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation and 
requested separate funding for this office within Weapons 
Activities, instead of integrating these activities under the 
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a 
Senate-confirmed position whose existing statutory 
responsibilities for preventing the spread of nuclear 
materials, technology, and expertise, providing for 
international nuclear safety, and detecting the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction worldwide are clearly 
established under the NNSA Act. While the recommendation does 
not provide constraints on which NNSA organizations should 
execute funds provided for NCTIR, the recommendation provides 
no funding requested specifically for Counterterrorism and 
Counterproliferation Programs within Weapons Activities. The 
Committee recommends consolidating research and development 
activities related to countering nuclear device proliferation 
within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, as part of broader 
direction to reinvigorate the NNSA's nonproliferation research 
and development base.
    The recommendation includes $4,595,000 for international 
emergency management and cooperation, $2,000,000 below the 
request. The Committee has funded international emergency 
management and cooperation activities within NCTIR since fiscal 
year 2009, when the NNSA requested to transfer these activities 
from Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to Weapons Activities. 
The NNSA should reconsider transferring these activities back 
to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, where they may be better 
integrated with other international cooperative nuclear 
security activities.

                            SITE STEWARDSHIP

    Site Stewardship provides funding for Long-Term 
Stewardship, Nuclear Materials Integration, and Minority 
Serving Institution Partnerships. Funding for Corporate Project 
Management has been shifted to the Office of the Administrator 
to consolidate funding for support services contracts. The 
Committee recommends $79,531,000 for Site Stewardship, 
$7,795,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $2,918,000 below the 
budget request.
    Minority Serving Institution Partnerships.--The Committee 
recommends $14,531,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and 
$1,300,000 above the budget request. The Committee is 
disappointed the budget request reduced funding for this 
important program and provides additional funding above the 
budget request to sustain the current level of funding for the 
program. The Committee supports the educational and research 
partnerships of the Department and encourages additional 
partnerships to be developed with minority serving 
institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (HBCUs), to ensure diversity within the next 
generation of scientists and researchers addressing nuclear 
security and environmental management issues.

                        DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

    Defense Nuclear Security is responsible for developing and 
implementing security programs for the protection, control, and 
accountability of materials and for the physical security of 
all facilities of the nuclear security enterprise. The 
Committee recommends $650,123,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, 
$14,858,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $32,000,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee is concerned that the NNSA 
proposed a seven percent reduction in funding for Defense 
Nuclear Security and no construction funds to address the 
backlog of maintenance and upgrades needed at NNSA sites. In 
addition, the NNSA has overestimated the savings it expects to 
realize from organizational and contract reforms and has not 
assured the Committee it can provide adequate protective force 
levels at a lower level of funding. The Committee expects the 
NNSA to request a more appropriate level of funding in future 
years to ensure protection of special nuclear materials at the 
NNSA sites.
    14-D-710 Device Assembly Facility (DAF) Argus Installation 
Project, NNSS.--The Committee recommends $14,000,000, 
$14,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the budget request. This 
project was deferred in the fiscal year 2014 Act while the NNSA 
implemented organizational reforms. The recommendation allows 
the NNSA to proceed with its plans to upgrade aging security 
systems at the Nevada Nuclear Security Site.

               INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CYBER SECURITY

    Information Technology and Cyber Security provides funding 
for the NNSA's cyber infrastructure, cyber development 
activities, and information technology needs. The Committee 
recommends $179,646,000 for Information Technology and Cyber 
Security, $34,578,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as 
the budget request.

                       LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS

    The Committee provides $307,058,000 for payments into the 
legacy University of California contractor employee defined 
benefit pension plans, $27,461,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
the same as the budget request.

                      DOMESTIC URANIUM ENRICHMENT

    Domestic Uranium Enrichment provides research, development, 
operations, and maintenance funding to sustain the availability 
of low enriched uranium to support stockpile stewardship and 
other national security needs. The Committee recommends 
$96,000,000 for Domestic Uranium Enrichment, $34,000,000 above 
fiscal year 2014 and $96,000,000 above the budget request.
    The NNSA has concluded its project to demonstrate the 
technical viability of centrifuges with the United States 
Enrichment Corporation. Funding for Domestic Uranium Enrichment 
is provided to maintain those centrifuges in warm standby while 
the Department conducts further analysis of its tritium and 
enriched uranium requirements. No funds shall be used to 
construct additional centrifuges in fiscal year 2015. The 
Committee will consider further investments in domestic 
enriched uranium capabilities only after the Secretary of 
Energy and the Secretary of Defense conduct a bottoms-up 
interagency reevaluation of the active and reserve tritium 
stockpile requirements, and the Nuclear Weapons Council 
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representative and the Senate that the revalidated tritium 
stockpile amounts to be maintained by the Department of Energy 
represent the minimum active and reserve national security 
requirements. To ensure that the results of such analysis are 
available for consideration of the fiscal year 2016 budget 
request, the Nuclear Weapons Council should provide this 
certification to the Committees not later than March 1, 2015.
    The NNSA is further directed to conduct an analysis of the 
process technologies available for providing enriched uranium, 
produce a conceptualized plant size for the options evaluated, 
and estimate the costs and time necessary for build-out of such 
plants. As part of this analysis, the NNSA shall include an 
option that represents the minimum train needed to produce LEU 
for anticipated tritium production needs, and compare the 
return on investment of additional acquisition costs needed to 
operate a full national security train at optimal efficiency. 
The NNSA shall provide the results of its analysis to the 
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and 
the Senate not later than June 1, 2015.
    United States Enrichment Corporation Fund.--The Committee 
notes that despite the Government Accountability Office's May 
2014 decision that the authorized uses of the United States 
Enrichment Corporation Fund (Fund) have been fulfilled, the 
Department is considering using approximately $40,000,000 of 
the Fund to support domestic uranium enrichment capabilities 
through the end of fiscal year 2014. The Committee notes that 
the fiscal year 2014 Act made available transfer authority, 
which the Department has not utilized, to support these 
activities. The Committee recognizes that funding for domestic 
enrichment for defense purposes must be balanced against all 
other priorities and includes discretionary appropriations for 
such activities. The recommendation includes a general 
provision that rescinds the remaining balances of the Fund.

                    DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION


                    (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................    $1,954,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................     1,555,156,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................     1,555,156,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................      -398,844,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation includes funding for 
Research and Development; Nonproliferation and International 
Security; International Material Protection and Cooperation; 
Fissile Materials Disposition; and the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative. The Committee recommendation for new budget 
authority for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is 
$1,592,156,000, $361,844,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$37,000,000 above the budget request. After accounting for the 
rescission of $37,000,000 in prior-year unobligated balances in 
this bill, the recommendation is $1,555,156,000, $398,844,000 
below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request.
    Continuing Nonproliferation Activities in Russia.--In 
consideration of recent Russian aggression in Ukraine and the 
resultant changes in the geopolitical environment, the NNSA 
must reexamine existing strategies for securing nuclear 
materials in Russia to confirm the United States government is 
not inappropriately subsidizing the cost of the Russian 
government or other Russian interests. Furthermore, it is 
essential that the NNSA demonstrate that its activities with 
Russia are effectively addressing U.S. national security 
interests according to measurable national security goals. The 
recommendation includes a provision that requires the Secretary 
of Energy to reassess the Department of Energy's engagement 
with Russia and to certify to the Committees on Appropriations 
of the House of Representatives and the Senate that any ongoing 
and new contracts or agreements made with Russia are in the 
national security interest of the United States. While the 
Secretary of Energy undertakes this strategic reassessment, the 
Committee provides no funds to enter into new contracts or 
agreements in the Russian Federation in fiscal year 2015. In 
addition, the Committee directs the use of funds provided in 
previous years for nonproliferation projects in Russia, but 
which have not yet been expended, to fund additional 
nonproliferation-related work in fiscal year 2015. The NNSA is 
directed to request new budget authority for any new work or 
agreements with Russia in future years. While eliminating all 
funding requested for new projects in Russia in fiscal year 
2015, the recommendation nevertheless sustains overall funding 
for the NNSA's nonproliferation activities at the level of the 
budget request to reflect the importance of these activities.
    Reinvesting in the Nonproliferation Capabilities of the DOE 
National Laboratories.--The Department of Energy's national 
laboratories are world-class institutions that provide a 
national capability for developing innovative and advanced 
technical solutions to difficult nuclear security problems. 
However, the NNSA has failed to fully access those capabilities 
and continues to reduce funding in its budget request for 
nonproliferation-related research and development, among other 
nonproliferation programs. Considering the large reductions in 
the budget request, it appears that the Office of Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) has not sufficiently adapted its 
programs to meet evolving nuclear security challenges. Rather, 
the NNSA continues to operate in a fragmented manner where DNN 
is limited to carrying out only traditional nonproliferation 
programs, many of which are in their sunset years. While DNN 
has supported several Nuclear Security Summits, it has assigned 
responsibility for many follow up initiatives to other 
organizations. Further, the NNSA has adopted a dispersed 
approach to address strategic gaps in NNSA's support of 
counterproliferation missions. Specifically, the NNSA created 
the Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation, 
instead of integrating these activities under the Deputy 
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a Senate-
confirmed position whose existing statutory responsibilities 
for preventing the spread of nuclear materials, technology, and 
expertise, providing for international nuclear safety, and 
detecting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
worldwide are clearly established under the NNSA Act. Given the 
concerns regarding the spread of nuclear technologies and the 
continued reluctance of DNN to evolve its programs to meet the 
latest threats, the Committee recommendation reprioritizes 
funding to reinvigorate the nonproliferation research and 
development base of the Department's national laboratories, 
provide focus to nuclear forensics and attribution activities, 
and integrate new counterproliferation-related research and 
development into the NNSA's ongoing nonproliferation 
activities.

       DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and 
Development program conducts applied research, development, 
testing, and evaluation of science and technology to respond to 
threats to national security posed by the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. The Committee 
recommends $452,709,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Research and Development, $53,871,000 above fiscal year 2014 
and $91,901,000 above the budget request.
    Nuclear Forensics and Attribution.--The NNSA has failed to 
respond to Committee direction to name a lead office within the 
NNSA that is responsible for coordinating development of a 
national nuclear forensics capability. Therefore, the 
recommendation provides $25,000,000 for nuclear forensics and 
attribution to focus NNSA's efforts that support development of 
U.S. nuclear forensics capabilities.
    Counterproliferation Research and Development.--The 
recommendation includes $51,901,000 for counterproliferation-
related research and development activities that were requested 
to be funded within Weapons Activities under a new program for 
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation. The recommendation 
for Weapons Activities only includes funding for 
counterterrorism activities that have been traditionally funded 
within that account and includes funds for the remaining 
requested activities within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Research and Development.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    The Nonproliferation and International Security program 
applies technical and policy expertise to facilitate nuclear 
cooperation, safeguard and secure nuclear materials, and 
provide solutions for treaty monitoring and compliance. The 
Committee recommends $144,246,000 for Nonproliferation and 
International Security, $15,571,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$2,887,000 above the budget request. Funding above the request 
is provided to accelerate technical review of export licenses 
for dual-use commodities to better support U.S. industry and to 
provide enhanced capabilities to determine proliferation trends 
and impacts.

           INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

    The International Materials Protection and Cooperation 
(IMPC) program works cooperatively with partner countries to 
secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material in order to 
improve the physical security at facilities that possess or 
process significant quantities of materials that are of 
proliferation concern. The Committee recommends $233,367,000 
for IMPC activities, $186,258,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$72,100,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation does not include $72,100,000 that was requested 
for Second Line of Defense activities downblending operations, 
physical security upgrades, and sustainability of facilities in 
the Russian Federation. No IMPC or other NNSA funds may be used 
for the purchase of the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement 
System (MILES) for Russia.
    While Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction and other 
successful cooperative nuclear security initiatives have 
concluded, follow-on proposals to continue related work must be 
reassessed from a U.S. national security standpoint. For 
example, the recently completed Megatons to Megawatts program 
represented a programmatic model that exemplified how a 
cooperative nuclear security agreement could provide high 
national security value as well as other national benefits. 
Under Megatons to Megawatts, Russian weapons-origin highly 
enriched uranium (HEU) was downblended to low enriched uranium 
(LEU) so that it could never again be used for nuclear weapons, 
and the resulting LEU was made available to U.S. nuclear 
utilities in what was effectively a mutually advantageous 
commercial deal. The NNSA is requesting to continue to pay for 
Russian HEU downblending operations for nuclear material that 
is not verified to be Russian weapons-origin and that is not 
made available to U.S. utilities. Russia has extremely large 
stockpiles of HEU and the relatively small quantity of HEU that 
is reduced by the NNSA's IMPC program has little impact on the 
overall size of Russian HEU stockpiles. Rather, continuing the 
program appears to primarily benefit Russian interests by 
providing access in Russia to a source of LEU fuel whose 
production is effectively subsidized by the United States. As 
the NNSA reanalyzes its cooperative nonproliferation activities 
with Russia, the NNSA must ensure that only those activities 
which are effectively and measurably contributing to U.S. 
nuclear security objectives are continued.

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

    The Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD) program is 
responsible for meeting commitments under the U.S.-Russia 
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. The Committee 
recommendation provides $430,000,000 for fissile materials 
disposition, $96,057,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$118,875,000 above the budget request.
    U.S. Plutonium Disposition.--The Committee recommends 
$60,000,000, $97,557,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $25,000,000 
below the budget request. Funding below the budget request is a 
result of the transfer of MOX Other Project Costs (OPCs) to the 
MOX project as described below.
    Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River, 
SC.--The Committee recommends $345,000,000, $1,500,000 above 
fiscal year 2014 and $149,000,000 above the budget request. The 
recommended amount includes $25,000,000 requested for MOX OPCs 
within U.S. plutonium disposition, consistent with the 
Committee's recommendation for other major DOE projects with a 
total project cost greater than $750,000,000. Consolidating 
OPCs into one project line improves integration of startup and 
commissioning activities, eliminates a common need for 
reprogramming, and provides greater transparency into the costs 
of major construction projects. After accounting for this 
shift, the total amount recommended for the MOX project is 
$38,500,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $124,000,000 above the 
budget request.
    The Plutonium Management Disposition Agreement (PMDA) 
represents the only active and verifiable agreement that the 
United States has with the Russian Federation to permanently 
dispose of weapons-grade plutonium. The Department has released 
a report that describes five alternatives to meeting U.S. 
commitments under the PMDA that suggests downblending the 
material and disposing of it at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
(WIPP) may be less expensive than continuing to construct the 
MOX plant. However, the Committee is concerned that the 
Department has not accurately represented the comparative life 
cycle costs of these alternatives. The NNSA has little 
capability to accurately estimate programmatic and project 
costs and did not seek outside assistance to independently 
verify its lifecycle cost estimates.
    The omissions in the lifecycle cost estimates are numerous. 
While the NNSA explains that feedstock production capabilities 
are needed for each option, the cost of providing feedstock is 
not estimated consistently across the options. There is no 
attempt to quantify project risks, and the Department's 
analysis does not properly account for risk reduction 
strategies that are already mature, such as contract 
modifications that could cap construction costs. Considering 
the very long timeline for the downblending option, estimated 
to take 43 years or nearly twice as long as the MOX option, 
quantifying those risks could have a significant impact on the 
life-cycle costs of downblending. In addition, the NNSA has 
made little progress working with nuclear utilities to identify 
potential sources of income that might offset MOX operating 
costs and has not attempted to quantify the economic benefit to 
ratepayers of providing access to a relatively inexpensive 
source of nuclear fuel. Furthermore, and perhaps most 
significantly, the NNSA has identified some issues but has not 
provided critical analysis on the feasibility of downblending 
considering the necessity of gaining congressional support for 
changing the Land Withdrawal Act for WIPP at a time when the 
Department's mismanagement of its cleanup operations has 
resulted in the shutdown of that facility.
    To address these inadequacies, the NNSA is directed to 
prepare an independent lifecycle cost estimate for the MOX 
construction and downblending options, and to provide to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate not later than 60 days after enactment of this 
Act a report that describes those lifecycle costs and discusses 
the relative costs and benefits and feasibility of the two 
options. The Department shall discontinue further study of all 
other options. The Department's alternatives report did not 
suggest that any of the other three alternatives identified 
would save costs, which was the Department's primary rationale 
for reconsidering potential alternatives. There is no value to 
continuing to analyze alternatives that are not feasible and do 
not save costs. Rather, establishing a protracted deadline for 
making a decision drives up costs, wastes additional taxpayer 
funds, and delays resolution of project management issues that 
must be addressed no matter which alternative is selected.
    The recommendation provides funding above the budget 
request to sustain the current pace of construction on the MOX 
facility in fiscal year 2015 and includes a provision that 
prohibits the use of MOX funding to place the project in cold 
standby.
    Waste Solidification Building, Savannah River, SC.--The 
Committee recommends no funding, the same as fiscal year 2014 
and $5,125,000 below the budget request. The Committee will not 
allocate additional taxpayer dollars to this project that 
continues to fall further behind schedule. The NNSA must first 
exhaust all options to pay for further cost increases out of 
prior-year funds.

                   GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

    The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) mission is to 
identify, secure, remove, and facilitate the disposition of 
high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and 
equipment around the world. The Committee recommends 
$342,888,000 for GTRI activities, $99,214,000 below fiscal year 
2014 and $9,400,000 above the budget request.
    HEU Reactor Conversions.--The Committee recommends 
$118,083,000, $43,917,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $4,300,000 
below the budget request. The reduction below the budget 
request eliminates funding for conversion costs of the reactor 
at the Kurchatov Institute in Russia which has ties to the 
Russian military.
    International Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal and 
Protection.--The Committee recommends $161,173,000, to remove 
and secure nuclear and radiological materials around the world, 
$38,929,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $28,700,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee recommendation does not include 
$11,300,000 that was requested to upgrade security systems in 
Russian facilities housing radiological materials and does not 
include $10,000,000 that was requested to consolidate nuclear 
materials within Russia to reduce its financial burden 
associated with maintaining those security systems. The 
Committee directs those funds be used instead to pay for 
storage, management, and processing of spent foreign fuel 
removals at the Savannah River Site and Idaho National 
Laboratory. The NNSA has not been accounting for the costs of 
its material removal program and is placing an increasing 
financial burden on the Defense Environmental Cleanup program 
to pay for these costs. Funding for Defense Environmental 
Cleanup is intended to be used for the cleanup of the legacy of 
the U.S. nuclear weapons program, not to meet the costs of 
international material consolidation and removal activities in 
support of U.S. nonproliferation goals. The cost sharing 
arrangement between the NNSA and Office of Environmental 
Management (EM) is nearly ten years old and was negotiated 
before the President's Four Year Goal brought increased 
quantities of foreign spent fuel into the U.S. for management 
and disposal by EM. The Department is directed to reanalyze the 
costs of the GTRI program and to provide to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act a report 
describing an updated cost sharing arrangement for spent fuel 
storage, processing, and EM support of other NNSA missions, 
such as feedstock production.
    Domestic Radiological Material Removal and Protection.--The 
Committee recommends $63,632,000, $16,368,000 below fiscal year 
2014 and $15,000,000 below the budget request. The fiscal year 
2014 Act contained a large increase for these activities that 
at the time of the writing of this report is approximately 78 
percent unencumbered. The Committee will not support continuing 
such high levels of funding if the NNSA cannot demonstrate it 
can efficiently execute those funds in a timely manner.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    Rescissions.--The Committee rescinds $37,000,000 in 
unobligated and unencumbered prior-year balances that were 
planned for projects in Russia, but which the NNSA has no plan 
to use in fiscal year 2014.
    Use of prior-year balances.--The Committee directs the use 
of $113,963,000 in prior-year balances to offset fiscal year 
2015 needs as described above. Prior-year balances shall be 
derived from unencumbered funds that the NNSA planned to use 
for projects in Russia in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The NNSA 
should request new budget authority to support new agreements 
or contracts in Russia that are certified to be in the U.S. 
national security interest in future budget requests.

                             Naval Reactors


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................    $1,095,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................     1,377,100,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................     1,215,342,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................      +120,342,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................      -161,758,000
 

    The Naval Reactors (NR) program is responsible for all 
aspects of naval nuclear propulsion from technology development 
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. 
The program provides for the design, development, testing, and 
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and 
reactor cores. The Committee recommendation for Naval Reactors 
is $1,215,342,000, $120,342,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$161,758,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation fully funds development of the Ohio-Replacement 
ballistic missile submarine and refueling of the S8G prototype, 
which is closely linked to the Ohio-Replacement. The Committee 
continues to provide funding separately for these high-priority 
activities.
    Naval Reactors Budget Review.--The Committee remains 
concerned about the high year-to-year increases that NR is 
using for its programmatic planning basis in future years. In 
order to carry out its plans, NR's out-year budgets would need 
to grow dramatically, an unlikely scenario considering the 
current fiscal environment. Even if the increases planned were 
attainable, NR's five-year budget figures in the budget request 
appear to artificially limit funding in order to fit within the 
Administration's projected budget caps. In light of these 
fiscal realities, NR is directed to conduct a multi-year review 
of its programmatic requirements to better understand how 
funding levels below its five-year projections might impact its 
long-term strategies. As part of its review, NR should consider 
how its projects and activities may need to be reprioritized or 
re-sequenced in order to stay on track with the highest 
priority goals. NR is directed to submit to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act a report 
that describes the results of its review and includes an 
integrated priority list of its budgetary requirements.
    Ohio-Replacement Reactor Systems Development.--The 
Committee recommends $156,100,000, $29,700,000 above fiscal 
year 2014 and the same as the budget request. The Committee's 
recommendation prioritizes increases for new development work 
associated with the Ohio-replacement above base development 
activities funded under NR Development that are not associated 
with a major development effort.
    S8G Prototype Refueling.--The Committee recommends 
$126,400,000, $18,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same 
as the budget request.
    NR Development.--The Committee recommends $410,351,000, 
$3,947,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $15,349,000 below the 
budget request. Within this amount, $68,000,000 is provided for 
the Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory to 
resolve fuel supply shortages that have occurred due to funding 
cuts over the past few years.
    NR Operations and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends 
$368,071,000, $11,771,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$44,309,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, not 
less than $119,279,000 is provided for Research Reactor 
Facility Operations and Maintenance to ensure sufficient 
funding is available for a maintenance shutdown of the 
prototype reactor at the Kesselring Site. Funding for Spent 
Fuel Handling Facility Other Project Costs (OPCs) is 
transferred to the line-item construction project as described 
below.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $112,920,000, 
$88,547,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $97,000,000 below the 
budget request. The Committee supports increased investment in 
NR infrastructure, but prioritizes continued funding for 
ongoing projects and those that address outstanding safety and 
security issues. As a result, the recommendation defers 
commencement of an overpack storage expansion project that is 
not needed until 2022. In addition, the Committee provides no 
funding to construct a simulation training facility that is 
primarily intended to meet Navy training needs because the 
training of Navy nuclear operators is a Navy rather than DOE 
responsibility.
    The Committee is concerned about the affordability of NR's 
construction plans. The fiscal year 2015 budget request 
proposes to commence five new construction projects, despite 
failing to identify all the funds needed to complete these 
projects within its projected five-year budget plan. In 
addition, estimated project costs are continuing to rise due to 
what appears to be a failure to control project scope. The 
total project cost of the Kesselring Central Office Building 
project has grown to $24,850,000, an increase of $9,600,000 or 
63 percent above its previously reported cost of $15,250,000. 
The total project cost of the Materials Characterization 
Laboratory Expansion project has grown to $38,200,000, an 
increase of $16,400,000 or 75 percent above its previously 
reported cost of $21,800,000. The Committee defers additional 
funding and directs NR to resolve the expansion of scope before 
requesting additional funds for these two projects.
    The budget request fails to provide the minimum required 
information regarding square footage of each new facility and 
associated demolition work. The Committee provides 
clarification that this reporting requirement is applicable to 
NR projects and should be clearly reported in each project data 
sheet in future budget requests.
    Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project, NRF.--The 
Committee recommends $70,000,000, $70,000,000 above fiscal year 
2014 and $71,100,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
provides funding for Other Project Costs (OPCs) within project 
funds, consistent with the recommendation for accounting for 
OPCs for other DOE major projects with a total project cost 
greater than $750,000,000. Consolidating OPCs into one project 
line improves integration of startup and commissioning 
activities, eliminates a common need for reprogramming, and 
provides greater transparency into the costs of major 
construction projects. The recommended level permits work on 
the project to move forward, but maintains a slight delay that 
will stagger peak funding requirements with NR's other major 
multi-year activities in order to provide a more reliable 
planning basis. The Committee expects NR to conduct an 
independent cost review and to establish a clear path for 
completing its National Environmental Policy Act requirements 
prior to the award of Critical Decision-1.

                      Office of the Administrator


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $377,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       410,842,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       386,863,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        +9,863,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       -23,979,000
 

    The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and 
oversight for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field 
offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The Committee 
recommendation is $386,863,000, $9,863,000 above fiscal year 
2014 and $23,979,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
does not approve the NNSA's request to change the name of this 
appropriation to Federal Salaries and Expenses.
    Corporate Project Management.--The Committee recommends 
$9,863,000, $1,946,000 below the budget request. After 
accounting for the transfer of these activities from Weapons 
Activities as directed in the fiscal year 2014 Act, the 
recommended amount for Corporate Project Management is $745,000 
below fiscal year 2014. The NNSA should expedite establishing 
permanent federal capabilities for cost estimating and project 
management instead of relying on large support service 
contracts to conduct its oversight.
    Albuquerque Complex.--The recommendation provides no 
funding to build out or lease commercial office space in 
Albuquerque, $19,900,000 below the budget request. The NNSA's 
proposal does not provide the best value to the government and 
will cost the taxpayer more over time than refurbishing 
existing space and constructing new facilities. In addition, 
the NNSA's proposal to build out secure space for handling 
highly sensitive national security information creates a 
security vulnerability that is not acceptable considering the 
availability of existing onsite facilities that are not yet 
beyond their useful life. The recommendation includes funding 
and additional direction within Weapons Activities to address 
facility conditions at the Albuquerque Complex.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES


                     Defense Environmental Cleanup


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................    $5,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................     4,864,538,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................     4,801,280,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................      -198,720,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       -63,258,000
 

    The Defense Environmental Cleanup program is responsible 
for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites 
where the nation carried out defense-related nuclear research 
and production activities that resulted in radioactive, 
hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, 
stabilization, or some other cleanup action. The Committee's 
recommendation for Defense Environmental Cleanup is 
$4,801,280,000, $198,720,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$63,258,000 below the budget request. The recommendation does 
not include a federal contribution of $463,000,000 into the 
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. 
Within the amounts provided, the Department is directed to fund 
hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000.
    The recommendation reflects the fiscal constraints that are 
impacting resources available to accelerate work at cleanup 
sites and to respond to new challenges that might arise. While 
the recommended funding level for Defense Environmental Cleanup 
is reduced from the request, additional funds have been 
provided 
to non-defense cleanup activities to provide an overall level 
of funding for the Office of Environmental Management (EM) of 
$5,628,430,000, $202,158,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$6,742,000 above the budget request.
    Special Transfer Authority.--The Department has identified 
no funds in its budget request to address the recent incidents 
that have led to the shutdown of the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant (WIPP). Investigative reports have found that at least 
some of the problems that the Department must now address were 
entirely preventable. The Committee anticipates that funding 
available for environmental cleanup will continue to be highly 
constrained for the next several years. The Department's 
ability to safely and efficiently execute its program of work 
will directly impact its ability to meet other cleanup 
commitments, and events at WIPP increase the likelihood that 
the Department will have to use its limited cleanup funds to 
pay penalties to the states rather than to make progress on 
cleanup goals.
    To meet the immediate needs for expediting the return of 
WIPP to full operations, the Committee has identified funds in 
the budget request for payments in excess of requirements into 
the NNSA's contractor defined benefit pension plans. Pension 
payments are highly dependent on market conditions and the 
Department's ability to accurately predict payments several 
years in advance is inherently limited. The Committee notes 
that the intent of contributing funds above requirements is to 
avoid future programmatic risk if changes in market conditions 
require large variations in future required payments. However, 
the actual needs today at WIPP outweigh the hypothetical future 
benefits of overpaying into plans. The bill contains a 
provision that allows the Secretary of Energy to transfer up to 
$120,000,000 of NNSA funds that were requested for overpayments 
to pay for the costs of WIPP recovery.
    Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $2,085,071,000, 
$66,145,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $2,000,000 above the 
budget request. In recognition of the responsiveness of the 
Department to better account for its smaller construction 
activities, the Committee has provided greater flexibility by 
combining control points for Richland. While funding for 
Hanford is consolidated to enhance transparency into the 
overall funding provided to the site, the Committee maintains 
separate funding for DOE's two distinct site offices at 
Hanford.
    For the Richland Office, the recommendation funds the 
request of $26,290,000 for Richland construction activities, 
funds the request of $14,701,000 for community and regulatory 
support, and provides $832,080,000, $25,000,000 above the 
budget request, for Richland cleanup and disposition 
operations. Within that amount, at least $235,000,000 shall be 
used for the River Corridor Closure project.
    For the Office of River Protection, the recommendation 
provides $522,000,000 for Tank Farm Activities, $1,784,000 
above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the request. For Office 
of River Protection construction activities, the recommendation 
provides $690,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and 
$25,000,000 below the request. Within this amount, $12,000,000 
is provided to commence detailed design activities on the Low 
Activity Waste Pretreatment System project. The Committee does 
not support further acceleration of construction for the new 
framework agreement until DOE can resolve the cost and schedule 
uncertainties of its proposal. While the recommendation 
continues to provide control point flexibility between 
subprojects of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 
(WTP) in fiscal year 2015, the Committee expects the rebaseline 
effort currently underway to result in a proposal that will 
better account for the various costs of the project. The 
Department needs to provide considerably greater detail on the 
use of its funding, including its anticipated costs and 
schedule requirements for resolving the outstanding technical 
issues of the WTP. The Committee is also concerned that DOE has 
been shifting the allocation of funding for WTP-related work 
between Tank Farms and WTP subprojects by adjusting accounting 
codes for ``Shared Services'' in an effort to artificially show 
that a nominal $690,000,000 per year is being spent on the 
project. It is essential that the Department establish formal 
methods of accounting for its project costs so that overall 
progress can be tracked, contractor performance can be 
monitored, and taxpayer dollars are not wasted.
    Hanford's Tank Farms.--The Committee is concerned about the 
continued deterioration of aging tanks at Hanford and directs 
the Department to provide to the Committees on Appropriations 
of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 
February 1, 2015, a comprehensive report on tank maintenance 
and upgrade requirements, including projected costs of needed 
safety and maintenance upgrades. The report shall include an 
estimate of the costs and timeline for constructing new tanks 
with a description of the impacts on the timeline for 
constructing the Waste Treatment Plant if new tanks were 
required.
    Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends 
$380,203,000, $6,797,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $13,000,000 
above the budget request. The Committee is concerned about the 
impact that the closure of WIPP is having on DOE's ability to 
meet its cleanup milestones. The recommendation includes an 
additional $10,000,000 to support work plan adjustments needed 
to meet 2018 milestones now that TRU waste shipments have been 
temporarily suspended. The recommendation also includes 
$3,000,000 to accelerate shipments of mixed low level waste to 
maximize inventory disposals.
    NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $249,018,000, 
$65,658,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $44,617,000 below the 
budget request. Within this amount, the Committee recommends 
$180,000,000 for Los Alamos National Laboratory. The 
recommendation funds the request of $4,600,000 for project 
engineering and design of the Hexavalent Chromium Pump and 
Treatment Facility but does not provide the $24,000,000 
requested for construction because DOE cannot initiate the 
project until it is approved by the State of New Mexico. The 
fiscal year 2014 Act provided a one-time increase to support an 
agreement to expedite the removal of above ground legacy TRU 
waste. Now that TRU waste shipments to WIPP are suspended, the 
recommendation maintains overall funding for Los Alamos above 
the fiscal year 2013 level and urges the Department to obtain 
resolution of its long-term cleanup plans for the site.
    Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU).--The Committee 
recognizes that the Department of Energy and the private 
contractor are continuing cleanup at the site. The Committee 
notes that $12,500,000 is available from prior-year 
appropriations and an additional $20,500,000 is obligated but 
uncosted. The Committee directs the Department to preserve the 
$33,000,000 until a plan has been determined for the site. If, 
at that time, the Department is found to have a liability, the 
Committee expects the Department to apply the $32,500,000 
toward that outstanding obligation. If additional funding is 
needed once final agreement between the parties is achieved, 
the Committee expects the Department to submit a reprogramming 
request to fully support the agreed plan.
    Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends 
$212,818,000, $2,182,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $5,935,000 
above the budget request. The recommendation provides funding 
above the request for Oak Ridge Cleanup and Disposition to 
address work plan revisions for contact- and remote-handled TRU 
waste that are necessary due to the closure of WIPP. The 
recommendation also provides additional control point 
flexibility by including funding requested for OR Nuclear 
Facility D&D; within OR cleanup and waste disposition.
    Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends 
$1,104,904,000, $29,330,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$45,202,000 below the budget request. The recommendation 
reduces funding for site risk management, but includes 
additional funding within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to 
better account for the costs of the NNSA's spent fuel removal 
initiatives. The recommendation also includes direction for the 
Department to conduct a review of the cost sharing arrangement 
between EM and the NNSA to better account for the costs of NNSA 
programmatic needs. The recommendation does not provide the 
amount requested for radioactive liquid tank waste 
stabilization and disposition because the Department has not 
updated the performance baseline for the full scope of the Salt 
Waste Processing Facility project and cannot justify its 
timeline for conducting supporting startup and commissioning 
work.
    Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF).--The Committee 
recommends $135,000,000, $10,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
the same as the budget request. This amount includes ``Other 
Project Costs'' consistent with funding for OPCs for other 
Department of Energy projects with a total project cost greater 
than $750,000,000. Completion of the SWPF represents the 
critical path for meeting the Department's cleanup commitments 
at the site and therefore remains the Committee's highest 
priority at Savannah River.
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).--The Committee 
recommends $236,020,000, $19,827,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$20,000,000 above the budget request. Funds above the request 
are provided to initiate two new construction projects, a 
safety-significant ventilation system and a new exhaust shaft, 
which are needed to ensure WIPP can be safely operated.
    The Secretary of Energy is directed to designate an 
official to be responsible for developing a formal WIPP 
Recovery Plan that will return the facility to full operations. 
The recovery plan shall detail the Department's strategy to 
implement corrective actions to address the root causes of the 
fire and radiological incidents. The recovery plan shall 
continue to be updated with findings of ongoing accident and 
root cause investigations. While the Committee does not require 
outside independent review, the Department should seriously 
consider this action in light of the importance of WIPP to 
other Department sites as well as the uniqueness of the event 
and the facility. Before use of its special transfer authority, 
the Department shall provide its WIPP Recovery Plan to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate. The Department shall further provide the 
Committees a monthly update on its progress in implementing its 
recovery plan and addressing the root causes of the fire and 
radiological event.
    Program Support.--The Committee recommends $16,979,000, 
$1,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $2,000,000 above the 
budget request. Additional funding above the request is 
provided to expedite WIPP recovery efforts, including funding 
for mine safety expertise, review of documented safety analyses 
and engineered changes, and study of decontamination 
alternatives.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000, $8,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 
$3,007,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, 
$2,000,000 is provided for the National Spent Fuel Program at 
Idaho National Laboratory in order to maintain and update the 
database regarding the current inventory and characteristics of 
EM-managed spent fuel. In addition, the Department is directed 
to assess the current status of its spent fuel storage and 
processing infrastructure and to provide an assessment of the 
current risks and status of deferred maintenance to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate not later than September 30, 2015.
    Use of prior-year balances.--The Committee directs the use 
of $13,367,000 in prior-year balances that are greater than 
five years old.

                        Other Defense Activities


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $755,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       753,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       754,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -1,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................        +1,000,000
 

    This account provides funding for the Office of 
Environment, Health, Safety and Security; Office of Independent 
Enterprise Assessments; Office of Legacy Management; Defense 
Related Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals. The Committee recommendation for Other Defense 
Activities (ODA) is $754,000,000, $1,000,000 below fiscal year 
2014 and $1,000,000 above the budget request.
    Environment, Health, Safety and Security.--The Committee 
supports the Department of Energy's request to provide separate 
funding for the newly reorganized Health, Safety and Security 
activities. The Committee recommends $180,998,000 for the 
Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security and 
$73,534,000 for the Office of Independent Enterprise 
Assessments, the same as the budget request. Overall funding 
for these two organizations is $2,615,000 above fiscal year 
2014.
    The Committee believes it is critical to preserve the 
ability of the Department to conduct independent assessments of 
compliance and performance and that access to and cooperation 
from all Departmental programs is provided to the Office of 
Independent Enterprise Assessments. The Office of Independent 
Enterprise Assessments is directed to provide to the Committee 
an annual report that provides an overview of its oversight 
activities, findings, and recommendations for the fiscal year.
    The Committee notes that the Department still has not 
approved a revision to its Graded Security Posture (GSP) that 
will update security standards at DOE sites to meet the latest 
threats. While the Department has implemented organizational 
reforms, it has not yet demonstrated those reorganized offices 
can effectively reform security practices or impose 
accountability. The Department is directed to move 
expeditiously in updating its analysis with the latest known 
threats and approving a GSP that can be used to set and enforce 
consistent and appropriate standards of protection at each DOE 
site.
    Specialized Security Activities.--The Committee recommends 
$203,152,000 for Specialized Security Activities, $910,000 
above fiscal year 2014 and $1,000,000 above the budget request.
    Office of Legacy Management.--The Office of Legacy 
Management provides long-term stewardship following site 
closure. The Committee recommends $171,980,000 for Legacy 
Management, $5,003,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as 
the budget request. The Committee commends the Office of Legacy 
Management's efforts to undertake creative reforms to limit the 
volatility of its liabilities for contractor employee defined 
benefit pension plans while preserving the commitments made to 
legacy employees. The Committee supports additional reforms 
that might further reduce risks to ongoing programmatic 
activities at the Department of Energy.
    Defense Related Administrative Support.--The Committee 
recommends $118,836,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and the 
budget request, to provide administrative support for programs 
funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts.
    Office of Hearings and Appeals.--The Office of Hearings and 
Appeals is responsible for all of the Department's adjudicatory 
processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends $5,500,000, 
$478,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget 
request.

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

    Management of the federal power marketing functions was 
transferred from the Department of the Interior to the 
Department of Energy in the Department of Energy Organization 
Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91). These functions include the power 
marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Bonneville 
Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, 
the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing 
functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been 
transferred to the Western Area Power Administration.
    All four power marketing administrations give preference in 
the sale of their power to publicly-owned and cooperatively-
owned utilities. Operations of the Bonneville Power 
Administration are financed principally under the authority of 
the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-
454). Under this Act, the Bonneville Power Administration is 
authorized to use its revenues to finance the costs of its 
operations, maintenance, and capital construction, and to sell 
bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional 
capital program requirements.
    Beginning in fiscal year 2011, power revenues from the 
Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power 
Administrations, which were previously classified as mandatory 
offsetting receipts, were reclassified as discretionary 
offsetting collections to directly offset annual expenses. The 
capital expenses of Southwestern and Western Area Power 
Administrations are appropriated annually.

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific 
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square 
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets the power from federal hydropower projects 
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-federal generating 
facilities in the region, and exchanges and markets surplus 
power with Canada and California. Language is included to allow 
expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund for 
the Black Canyon Trout Hatchery.
    The Committee recognizes extraordinary measures were taken 
recently by the Department of Energy in an effort to correct 
hiring irregularities that negatively impacted veterans 
applying for employment at the Bonneville Power Administration. 
Both the Department and Bonneville need to ensure that all job 
applicants are treated fairly, all appropriate federal hiring 
laws are followed, and whistleblowers are protected. At the 
same time, the Committee reiterates its longstanding 
recognition of Bonneville's autonomy within the Department of 
Energy as a separate and distinct self-funding agency under the 
Bonneville Project Act, DOE Organization Act, and the Federal 
Columbia River Transmission System Act. Accordingly, the 
Committee expects the Department intervention in Bonneville 
management provoked by this matter to be both temporary and 
limited.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration


 
 
 
Budget estimate, 2015.................................            $- - -
Appropriation, 2014...................................             - - -
Recommended, 2015.....................................             - - -
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) markets 
hydroelectric power produced at 22 Army Corps of Engineers 
Projects in 11 states in the southeast. Southeastern does not 
own or operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to 
``wheel'' its power using the existing transmission facilities 
of area utilities.
    The total program level for SEPA in fiscal year 2015 is 
$96,930,000, with $89,710,000 for purchase power and wheeling 
and $7,220,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $73,579,000, 
and annual expenses will be offset by collections of $2,220,000 
provided in this Act and the use of prior-year balances of 
$5,000,000. Additionally, SEPA has identified $16,131,000 in 
alternative financing for purchase power and wheeling. The net 
appropriation, therefore, is $0 in the recommendation and the 
budget request.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $11,892,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        11,400,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        11,400,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................          -492,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) markets 
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects 
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, 
Oklahoma, and Texas. SWPA operates and maintains 1,380 miles of 
transmission lines, along with supporting substations and 
communications sites.
    The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power 
Administration is a net appropriation of $11,400,000, the same 
as the budget request. The total program level for Southwestern 
in fiscal year 2015 is $122,666,000, including $15,174,000 for 
operation and maintenance expenses, $63,000,000 for purchase 
power and wheeling, $31,089,000 for program direction, and 
$13,403,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total 
$87,840,000, including $5,438,000 for operation and 
maintenance, $53,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and 
$29,402,000 for program direction. Southwestern estimates it 
will secure alternative financing from customers in the amount 
of $23,426,000.

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


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $95,930,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        93,372,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        93,372,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -2,558,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and 
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles 
long. Western provides electricity to 15 western states over a 
service area of 1.3 million square miles.
    The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power 
Administration is a net appropriation of $93,372,000, the same 
as the budget request. The total program level for Western in 
fiscal year 2015 is recommended at $837,731,000, which includes 
$86,645,000 for construction and rehabilitation, $81,958,000 
for system operation and maintenance, $441,223,000 for purchase 
power and wheeling, and $227,905,000 for program direction. 
Offsetting collections include $471,540,000 for purchase power 
and wheeling and annual expenses, and the use of $7,161,000 of 
offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as 
authorized in P.L. 98-381). Western Area estimates it will 
secure alternative financing from customers in the amount of 
$265,658,000.
    The Committee is concerned that Western has not been as 
responsive as it could be in its efforts to work with its 
customers. Accordingly, the Committee encourages Western to 
improve its approach to addressing customer concerns, and the 
Committee will continue to monitor further developments.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................          $420,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................           228,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................           228,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................          -192,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and 
Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these 
two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area 
Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad 
Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of 
operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is 
administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use 
by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission.
    The budget request includes a proposal for authority to 
accept contributed funds in fiscal year 2015 for use in 
fulfilling duties associated with the Falcon and Amistad Dams. 
This authority would be equivalent to the authority used 
throughout the Western Area Power Administration to secure 
alternative financing. The Committee includes this proposal.
    The Committee recommendation is a net appropriation of 
$228,000, the same as the budget request. The total program 
level is $5,529,000, with $4,499,000 of offsetting collections 
applied toward annual expenses and $802,000 of alternative 
financing.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $304,600,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       327,277,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       304,389,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................          -211,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       -22,888,000
 

                                REVENUES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................     $-304,600,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................      -327,277,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................      -304,389,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................          +211,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       +22,888,000
 

    The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $304,389,000, $211,000 below 
fiscal year 2014 and $22,888,000 below the budget request. 
Revenues for FERC are established at a rate equal to the budget 
authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0. As described 
below, the Committee is concerned about the Commission's lack 
of responsiveness to ratepayers, state and local leaders, and 
the Committee, and has rejected the proposed one percent 
increase in salaries and benefits and delimited the 
Commissioners' use of funding.
    In addition, the Committee has denied the request for 
$20,277,000 to partially fund a $44,000,000 building 
consolidation project. The Commission has approximately 
$22,000,000 in carryover balances that it intends to use on 
this project, which is not scheduled to be completed until 
fiscal year 2020. The Committee encourages the Commission to 
request funding for this multi-year project so as not to create 
spikes in its requested salaries and expenses, and therefore 
revenues, in any one year.
    The Committee is aware that concerns remain about the 
degree of consideration given by FERC to the rights and 
concerns of private property owners during the process for 
developing, reviewing, and approving shoreline management 
plans. The Committee reiterates its support for the expeditious 
development and implementation of innovative and mutually 
agreeable solutions to resolve conflicts among project purposes 
and private property at specific locations.
    The Committee is concerned with recent reports from 
localities experiencing dramatic increases in their electricity 
costs for January 2014 due to transmission charges, with some 
localities reporting increases of more than one hundred percent 
over their estimated charges. The Committee appreciates FERC 
taking note of these impacts and hosting a technical conference 
on Winter 2013-2014 Operations and Market Performance in 
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System 
Operators. The Commission shall provide to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate a 
report on the causes of these increased costs, the impacts on 
localities and residents, and any authorities and actions that 
have been or potentially could be used to address these issues.
    However, the Committee urges the Commission to be more 
proactive in addressing the concerns of ratepayers. In 
particular, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
considers a request for approval of a new capacity zone, the 
Committee expects the views of local and state officials, 
regulators, and business leaders to be taken into account 
during the process. Further, the Committee also expects that 
the process will include considerations such as costs to 
ratepayers in addition to electrical reliability and 
availability.
    The Committee remains concerned about the backlog of 
liquefied natural gas export applications at the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission and continues to support a clearly 
communicated, timely process to reach an appropriate 
determination on each application. The Committee notes that 
FERC has yet to comply with the report directive included in 
House Report 113-135 and referenced by the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2014, which required FERC to submit to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, not later than February 16, 
2014, its plan to complete consideration of all applications 
filed with the Commission. The Committee reiterates its 
previous direction.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee's detailed funding recommendations for 
programs in Title III are contained in the following table.


                GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


             (INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

    The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of 
funds provided in this title to initiate requests for 
proposals, other solicitations or arrangements for new programs 
or activities that have not yet been approved and funded by the 
Congress; requires notification or a report for certain funding 
actions; prohibits funds to be used for certain multi-year 
``Energy Programs'' activities without notification; and 
prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds provided in 
this title through a reprogramming of funds except in certain 
circumstances.
    The bill continues a provision that permits the transfer 
and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with 
appropriation accounts established in this bill.
    The bill continues a provision that authorizes intelligence 
activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 
504 of the National Security Act of 1947.
    The bill modifies a provision that prohibits the use of 
funds in this title for capital construction of high hazard 
nuclear facilities, unless certain independent oversight is 
conducted, to account for a change in the Department of 
Energy's organizational structure.
    The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of 
funds provided in this title to approve critical decision-2 or 
critical decision-3 for certain construction projects, unless a 
separate independent cost estimate has been developed for that 
critical decision.
    The bill modifies a provision regarding uranium transfer 
notifications. A new subparagraph (c) has been included to 
increase the accuracy of Secretarial determinations required by 
the USEC Privatization Act. In implementing this subparagraph 
(c), the Department shall seek to minimize impacts on uranium 
transfers already planned during the fiscal year in which the 
new determination is required and should continue uranium 
transfers until the new determination is completed. The 
Department shall explore the use of expedited determination 
procedures and determinations completed on a timeframe to 
accommodate upcoming transfers.
    The bill continues a provision prohibiting the Office of 
Science from entering into multi-year funding agreements with a 
value of less than $1,000,000.
    The bill modifies a provision requiring cost reporting for 
major warhead refurbishment programs.
    The bill includes a provision rescinding funds from 
specific accounts.
    The bill includes a provision transferring funds to 
``Defense Environmental Cleanup.''
    The bill includes a provision restricting certain 
activities in the Russian Federation.
    The bill includes a provision rescinding funds from 
``United States Enrichment Corporation Fund.''
    The bill includes a provision regarding management of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
    The bill includes a provision clarifying laboratory 
directed research and development authorities.
    The bill includes a provision regarding a Department of 
Energy rule on ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                    Appalachian Regional Commission


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $80,317,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        68,200,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        80,317,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       +12,117,000
 

    The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965 by the 
Appalachian Regional Development Act (Public Law 89-4). It is 
comprised of the governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a 
federal co-chair appointed by the President. Each year, the ARC 
provides funding for several hundred projects in the 
Appalachian Region in areas such as business development, 
education and job training, telecommunications, infrastructure, 
community development, housing, and transportation.
    The Committee recommendation for the ARC is $80,317,000, 
the same as fiscal year 2014 and $12,117,000 above the budget 
request.
    To diversify and enhance regional business development, 
$10,000,000 is provided to continue the program of high-speed 
broadband deployment in distressed counties within the Central 
Appalachian region that have been most negatively impacted by 
the downturn in the coal industry. This funding shall be in 
addition to the 30 percent directed to distressed counties.
    The ARC targets 50 percent of its funds to distressed 
counties or distressed areas in the Appalachian region. The 
Committee continues to believe this should be the primary focus 
of the ARC.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        30,150,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        29,150,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        +1,150,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................        -1,000,000
 

    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was 
created by the fiscal year 1989 National Defense Authorization 
Act. The Board, composed of five members appointed by the 
President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary 
of Energy regarding public health and safety issues at the 
Department's defense nuclear facilities. The DNFSB is 
responsible for reviewing and evaluating the content and 
implementation of the standards relating to the design, 
construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department 
of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. The Committee expects 
the DNFSB to continue to play a significant role in 
scrutinizing the Department's safety and security activities, 
including the reform initiatives underway in the Department 
that may impact projects under its jurisdiction. The Committee 
recommendation for fiscal year 2015 is $29,150,000, $1,150,000 
above fiscal year 2014 and $1,000,000 below the budget request.

                        Delta Regional Authority


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        12,319,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        12,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................          -319,000
 

    The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state 
partnership established by the Delta Regional Authority Act of 
2000 (Public Law 106-554) that serves a 252-county/parish area 
in an eight-state region near the mouth of the Mississippi 
River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each 
participating state, the DRA is designed to remedy severe and 
chronic economic distress by stimulating economic development 
and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on 
the region's economy. The DRA seeks to help local communities 
leverage other federal and state programs, which are focused on 
basic infrastructure development, transportation improvements, 
business development, and job training services. Under federal 
law, at least 75 percent of appropriated funds must be invested 
in distressed counties and parishes, with 50 percent of the 
funds designated for transportation and basic infrastructure 
improvements.
    For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends $12,000,000, 
the same as fiscal year 2014 and $319,000 below the budget 
request.

                           Denali Commission


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................         7,396,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        10,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................        +2,604,000
 

    The Denali Commission is a regional development agency 
established by the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Public Law 
105 -277) to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, health 
services, and economic support throughout Alaska. To ensure 
that local communities have a stake in Commission-funded 
projects, local cost-share requirements for construction and 
equipment have been established for both distressed and non-
distressed communities.
    For the cost of the Commission's operations in fiscal year 
2015, the Committee recommends $10,000,000, the same as fiscal 
year 2014 and $2,604,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee supports the Denali Commission's recent 
efforts to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the 
Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce 
to provide oversight of the Commission's management, 
expenditures, and programs.

                  Northern Border Regional Commission


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................        $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................         3,000,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................         3,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -2,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 
110-234) authorized the establishment of the Northern Border 
Regional Commission (NBRC) as a federal-state partnership 
intended to address the economic development needs of 
distressed portions of the four-state region of Maine, New 
Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. The Committee has continued 
legislative language addressing the Commission's administrative 
expenses.
    The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to support the 
Commission's activities in fiscal year 2015, $2,000,000 below 
fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request.

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................          $250,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................             - - -
Recommended, 2015.....................................           250,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................          +250,000
 

    The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 
110-234) authorized the establishment of the Southeast Crescent 
Regional Commission as a federal-state partnership intended to 
address the economic development needs of distressed portions 
of the seven-state region in the southeastern United States not 
already served by a regional development agency.
    The Committee recommends $250,000 for operations of the 
commission in fiscal year 2015, the same as fiscal year 2014 
and $250,000 above the budget request.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................    $1,043,937,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................     1,047,433,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................     1,052,433,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        +8,496,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................        +5,000,000
 

                                REVENUES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................     $-920,721,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................      -925,155,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................      -880,155,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       +40,566,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       +45,000,000
 

                           NET APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................      $123,216,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       122,278,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       172,278,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................       +49,062,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................       +50,000,000
 

    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2015 is 
$1,052,433,000, $8,496,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 
$5,000,000 above the budget request. The total amount of budget 
authority is graphic by estimated revenues of $880,155,000, 
$40,566,000 less than fiscal year 2014 and $45,000,000 less 
than the budget request. Including revenues, the net 
appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 
$172,278,000.
    The recommendation reduces the amount made available for 
salaries and expenses by $40,000,000 to account for anticipated 
carryover from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2015. The 
Committee authorizes the NRC to re-allocate its unobligated 
carryover to supplement its fiscal year 2015 appropriation and 
directs the NRC, not later than 30 days after enactment of this 
Act, to submit a base table that documents this re-allocation. 
The recommendation further reduces salaries and expenses by 
$10,000,000 below the fiscal year 2015 budget request to 
account for lower-than-anticipated staffing levels. Within 
available funds, not more than $9,500,000 is included for 
salaries, travel, and other support costs for the Office of the 
Commission. These salaries and expenses shall include only 
salaries and benefits costs and travel costs, and are not to 
include general and administrative and infrastructure costs. 
The Committee directs that these funds are to be jointly 
managed by the Commissioners, and the bill requires that the 
use and expenditure of these salaries and expenses shall only 
be by a majority vote of the Commission. The NRC shall continue 
to include a breakout and explanation of the Commission 
salaries and expenses in its annual budget requests. If the 
Commission wishes to change the composition of the funds 
requested for its salaries and expenses in future years, it 
must do so in an annual budget request or through a 
reprogramming.
    The Committee notes that the NRC continues its 
administrative shutdown of the Yucca Mountain license 
application, as well as its willful misrepresentation of 
congressional intent. The recommendation continues language 
prohibiting the Chairman of the NRC from terminating any 
program, project, or activity without the approval of a 
majority of Commissioners. In addition, the recommendation 
requires the NRC to notify and report to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
on the use of emergency functions.
    The recommendation directs $55,000,000 to continue 
adjudication of the Yucca Mountain license application. The 
Committee does not share the Administration's perspective that 
once Nuclear Waste Fund resources are depleted, the NRC's 
responsibility to complete the Yucca Mountain license 
application is obviated. The NRC is directed to report to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate not later than January 1, 2015, on its plan to 
complete the license application and its additional funding 
needs as necessary.
    Integrated University Program.--From within available 
funds, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to provide 
financial support for the university education programs 
relevant to the NRC mission, as the Commission continues to be 
reliant on a pipeline of highly trained nuclear engineers and 
scientists and benefits substantially from this university 
program. Not less than $5,000,000 of this amount is to be used 
for grants to support research projects that do not align with 
programmatic missions, but are critical to maintaining the 
discipline of nuclear science and engineering.
    Reporting Requirements.--The Committee directs the 
Commission to continue to provide semi-annual reports on the 
status of its licensing and other regulatory activities.
    The Committee is aware that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission is planning to conduct a comprehensive review of its 
business lines, including a five-year plan of the agency's 
anticipated workload for licensing and construction of new and 
advanced facilities, an assessment of the size of the operating 
fleet, and an evaluation of required corporate support 
resources. As part of that process, the Committee directs the 
Commission to engage an outside entity with expertise on 
federal agency management to recommend ways the Commission can 
reduce its corporate support requirements and improve the 
efficiency of the Commission's internal processes. Not later 
than March 1, 2015, the Committee directs the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to submit the review's findings, 
budgetary impacts, and a long-term strategic workforce plan to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $11,955,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................        12,071,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................        12,071,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................          +116,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

                                REVENUES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................       $-9,994,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................       -10,099,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       -10,099,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................          -105,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

                           NET APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................        $1,961,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................         1,972,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................         1,972,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................           +11,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Committee recommends $12,071,000, $116,000 above fiscal 
year 2014 and the same as the budget request. Given the formula 
for fee recovery, the revenue estimate is $10,099,000, 
resulting in a net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission Inspector General of $1,972,000.
    The Committee has included $850,000 within the 
appropriation for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
for the Board to procure Inspector General services from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................        $3,400,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................         3,400,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................         3,400,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) was 
established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Committee expects the NWTRB to continue its active engagement 
with the Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 
issues involving nuclear waste disposal.
    The Committee recommends $3,400,000 for the NWTRB, the same 
as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2014...................................        $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2015.................................             - - -
Recommended, 2015.....................................             - - -
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2014...............................        -1,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2015.............................             - - -
 

    The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural 
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent 
agency in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant 
to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
324). The Federal Coordinator is responsible for coordinating 
local, federal, and international activities for a natural gas 
transportation project, including facilitating the permitting 
process, as well as joint surveillance and monitoring of 
construction with the State of Alaska. The recent market shift 
in the supply and demand for natural gas, coupled with the 
recently announced plans for a pipeline to deliver natural gas 
to Pacific Rim markets leads the Committee to conclude that no 
active or pending projects fit within the scope of the Office 
of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 
Transportation Projects.
    The Committee recommends no funds to support the activities 
of this office in fiscal year 2015, and directs that the Office 
of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 
Transportation Projects use remaining balances to implement an 
orderly shutdown.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    The bill includes a provision making permanent reporting on 
the use of emergency authority.
    The bill modifies a provision requiring the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to fully comply with congressional 
requests for information to allow changes or modifications to 
procedures governing congressional requests. In allowing 
procedural changes with the support of the majority of the 
commissioners, the Committee continues to expect that the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be responsive to 
congressional requests in a timely and transparent manner.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

    The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of 
funds provided in this Act to, in any way, directly or 
indirectly influence congressional action on any legislation or 
appropriation matters pending before the Congress, other than 
to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section 
1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
    The bill continues a provision limiting the use of funds to 
enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or 
cooperative agreement with; make a grant to; or provide a loan 
or loan guarantee to corporations convicted of a felony 
criminal violation of Federal law within the preceding 24 
months. The Department shall provide an annual report to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate, due not later than 30 days after the end of 
each fiscal year, detailing its implementation of this 
provision, including a list of affected corporations and a 
justification for any cases in which the Department has 
determined that the limitation should not apply.
    The bill continues a provision limiting the use of funds to 
enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or 
cooperative agreement with; make a grant to; or provide a loan 
or loan guarantee to corporations with certain unpaid Federal 
tax liabilities. The Department shall provide an annual report 
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, due not later than 30 days 
after the end of each fiscal year, detailing its implementation 
of this provision, including a list of affected corporations 
and a justification for any cases in which the Department has 
determined that the limitation should not apply.
    The bill continues a provision consolidating the transfer 
authorities into and out of accounts funded by this Act. No 
additional transfer authority is implied or conveyed by this 
provision. For the purposes of this provision, the term 
``transfer'' shall mean the shifting of all or part of the 
budget authority in one account to another. In addition to 
transfers provided in this Act or other appropriation Acts, and 
existing authorities, such as the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535), 
by which one part of the United States Government may provide 
goods or services to another part, the Act allows transfers 
using Section 4705 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 
2745). The first semiannual report required by subsection (c) 
shall be submitted not later than six months after enactment of 
this Act.
    The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in 
contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11, 
1994, regarding environmental justice.
    The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in this 
Act from being used to close the Yucca Mountain license 
application process or for actions that would remove the 
possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the 
future.
    The bill includes a provision setting at $0 the amount that 
the proposed new budget authority in this recommendation 
exceeds the allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations 
under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing 
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.

                   TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

    Under section 104, ``General Provisions, Corps of 
Engineers--Civil'', $4,700,000 under the heading ``Operation 
and Maintenance'' may be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps projects.

                    TITLE II--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

    Under ``Water and Related Resources'', $25,000 is available 
for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
$6,840,000 is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado 
River Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary 
may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of 
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall 
appropriation under the heading.
    Under ``California Bay Delta Restoration'', such sums as 
may be necessary to carry out authorized purposes may be 
transferred to appropriate accounts of other participating 
federal agencies.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Under section 302, ``General Provisions--Department of 
Energy'', unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided 
for activities in this Act may be transferred to appropriation 
accounts for such activities established pursuant to this 
title. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the 
applicable established accounts and thereafter may be accounted 
for as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.
    Under section 310, ``General Provisions--Department of 
Energy'', up to $90,000,000 from ``Weapons Activities'' and up 
to $30,000,000 from ``Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'' 
pension plan overpayments are available to transfer to 
``Defense Environmental Cleanup'' to support needs at the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Under section 504, transfer authorities are clarified for 
the purposes of accounts funded by the Act.

   Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressionally Directed Spending Items

    Neither the bill nor the report contains any congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as 
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law.

                      TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and 
specifications of projects prior to construction.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Construction, stating that funds can be used for the 
construction of river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 
related projects authorized by law, and for detailed studies 
and plans and specifications of such projects.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Mississippi River and Tributaries, permitting the use of funds 
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, 
Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: 
the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and 
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem 
restoration, and related projects authorized by law; providing 
security for infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, 
including administrative buildings and laboratories; 
maintaining authorized harbor channels provided by a State, 
municipality, or other public agency that serve essential 
navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and charting 
northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing 
and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to 
navigation.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds 
from a special account for resource protection, research, 
interpretation, and maintenance activities at outdoor 
recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost 
of operation and maintenance of dredged material disposal 
facilities for which fees have been collected.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the 
total amount of funds provided for each of the programs, 
projects, or activities funded under the Operation and 
Maintenance heading shall not be allocated to a field operating 
activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and 
permitting the use of these funds for emergency activities as 
determined by the Chief of Engineers to be necessary and 
appropriate.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 
Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United 
States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the 
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Expenses, providing that funds are available for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this 
Act for the activities funded in Expenses.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency 
appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general 
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other 
activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural 
disaster.
    Language has been included to provide for funding for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the 
funds may be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the execution of 
any contract for a program, project or activity which commits 
funds in excess of the amount appropriated (to include funds 
reprogrammed under section 101) that remain unobligated.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 103, prohibiting the award of a 
continuing contract for any project funded out of the Inland 
Waterway Trust Fund.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 104, providing for transfer 
authority to the Fish and Wildlife Service for mitigation for 
lost fisheries.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 105, prohibiting certain actions 
related to the definition of fill material or discharge of fill 
material under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 106, prohibiting certain actions 
related to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 107, allowing the possession of 
firearms at water resources development projects under certain 
circumstances.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Water and Related Resources, providing that funds are available 
for fulfilling federal responsibilities to Native Americans and 
for grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local 
governments and Indian tribes.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Water and Related Resources, allowing fund transfers within the 
overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund 
and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing 
that such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado 
River Dam Fund; and, transfers may be increased or decreased 
within the overall appropriation.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Water and Related Resources, providing for funds to be derived 
from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account 
established by 16 U.S.C. 6806; that funds contributed under 43 
U.S.C. 395 by non-federal entities shall be available for 
expenditure; and that funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a are 
to be credited to the Water and Related Resources account and 
available for expenditure.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Water and Related Resources, providing that funds may be used 
for high priority projects carried out by the Youth 
Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, directing the Bureau 
of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of 
additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by 
section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, providing that none of 
the funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or 
lease of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already 
committed to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by 
consent or decree.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
California Bay-Delta Restoration, permitting the transfer of 
funds to appropriate accounts of other participating federal 
agencies to carry out authorized programs; allowing funds made 
available under this heading to be used for the federal share 
of the costs of the CALFED Program management; and requiring 
that CALFED implementation be carried out with clear 
performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in 
achieving the goals and objectives of the program.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Policy and Administration, providing that funds are to be 
derived from the Reclamation Fund and prohibiting the use of 
any other appropriation in the Act for activities budgeted as 
policy and administration expenses.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account, rescinding 
unobligated funds.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase of motor 
vehicles for replacement.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Department of the Interior, section 201, providing that none of 
the funds may be available for obligation or expenditure 
through a reprogramming of funds except in certain 
circumstances.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Department of the Interior, section 202, regarding the San Luis 
Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy for the purchase, construction, and 
acquisition of plant and capital equipment.
    Language has been included under Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and 
acquisition of plant and capital equipment.
    Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the 
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 
Development for the acquisition of interest, including 
defeasible and equitable interest in any real property or any 
facility or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and 
for conducting inquires, technological investigations, and 
research concerning the extraction, processing, use and 
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social and 
environmental cost under 30 U.S.C. 3, 1602 and 1603.
    Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and 
Oil Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances.
    Language has been included under the Elk Hills School Lands 
Fund, permitting payment to California for the State Teachers' 
Retirement Fund.
    Language has been included under Northeast Home Heating Oil 
Reserve rescinding funds that were not designated by the 
Congress as emergency funding.
    Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental 
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 
plant and capital equipment.
    Language has been included under Science providing for the 
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under Science restricting the 
availability of funds for an international project until 
certain conditions are met, or a waiver is issued.
    Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal for 
the acquisition of real property or facility construction or 
expansion.
    Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 
Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section 
1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as graphicting 
collections to this account and making fees collected under 
section 1702(h) in excess of the appropriated amount 
unavailable for expenditure until appropriated.
    Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 
Guarantee Program prohibiting the subordination of certain 
interests.
    Language has been included under Clean Coal Technology 
rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress as 
emergency funding.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and 
for official reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the 
Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to 
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
others, as long as such increases are graphic by revenue 
increases of the same or greater amounts.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent 
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the 
Department of Energy to use revenues to graphic appropriations. 
The appropriations language for this account reflects the total 
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are 
received.
    Language has been included under Weapons Activities for the 
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation for the purchase, construction, and 
acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other incidental 
expenses.
    Language has been included under Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation restricting the use of funds provided for a 
specific project.
    Language has been included under Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation rescinding funds that were not designated by 
the Congress as emergency funding.
    Language has been included under Naval Reactors for the 
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
equipment, facilities, and facility expansion.
    Language has been included under the Office of the 
Administrator providing funding for official reception and 
representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Defense Environmental 
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 
plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor 
vehicles.
    Language has been included under Other Defense Activities 
for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and 
capital equipment.
    Language has been included under Bonneville Power 
Administration Fund providing funding for official reception 
and representation expenses; approving funds for certain 
programs; and precluding any new direct loan obligations.
    Language has been included under Southeastern Power 
Administration providing funds for official reception and 
representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Southeastern Power 
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 
and 16 U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power 
and related services shall be credited to the account as 
discretionary graphicting collections and remain available 
until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual 
expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration; amounts 
collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall 
be credited to the account as graphicting collections and 
remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration providing funds for official reception and 
representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 
and 16 U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power 
and related services shall be credited to the account as 
discretionary graphicting collections and remain available 
until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual 
expenses of the Southwestern Power Administration; amounts 
collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall 
be credited to the account as graphicting collections and 
remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
    Language has been included under Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration, providing funds for official reception and 
representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 
16 U.S.C. 825s, and 43 U.S.C. 392a, amounts collected from the 
sale of power and related services shall be credited to the 
account as discretionary graphicting collections and remain 
available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the 
annual expenses of the Western Area Power Administration; 
amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling 
expenses shall be credited to the account as graphicting 
collections and remain available until expended for the sole 
purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
    Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad 
Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that, notwithstanding 
68 Stat. 255 and 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected from the 
sale of power and related services shall be credited to the 
account as discretionary graphicting collections and remain 
available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the 
annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities of those dams 
and associated Western Area Power Administration activities.
    Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad 
Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that the Western Area 
Power Administration may accept a limited amount of 
contributions from the United States power customers of the 
Falcon and Amistad Dams for use by the Commissioner of the 
United States Section of the International Boundary and Water 
Commission for operating and maintenance of hydroelectric 
facilities.
    Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to 
provide official reception and representation expenses, and to 
permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the 
appropriation as revenues are received.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 301, prohibiting the use of funds 
to prepare or initiate requests for proposals or other 
solicitations or arrangements for programs that have not yet 
been fully funded by the Congress; requiring notification and 
reporting requirements for certain funding awards; limiting the 
use of multi-year funding mechanisms; and providing that none 
of the funds may be available for obligation or expenditure 
through a reprogramming of funds except in certain 
circumstances.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 302, providing that unexpended 
balances of prior appropriations may be transferred and merged 
with new appropriation accounts established in this Act.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 303, providing that funds for 
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
authorized for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2015 until enactment of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 304, prohibiting the use of funds 
for capital construction of high hazard nuclear facilities 
unless certain independent oversight is conducted.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 305, prohibiting the use of funds 
to approve critical decision-2 or critical decision-3 for 
certain construction projects, unless a separate independent 
cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 306, regarding uranium 
determinations.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 307, requiring the Office of 
Science to fund up-front funding arrangements for less than 
$1,000,000.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 308, requiring certain reporting on 
major warhead refurbishments.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 309, rescinding certain funds that 
were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 310, providing transfer authority 
to support an environmental cleanup project.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 311, prohibiting nonproliferation 
activities in the Russian Federation until certain reporting 
requirements are met.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 312, rescinding funds under ``USEC 
Privatization Fund''.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 313, prohibiting funds for certain 
activities related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without 
prior notification to the Congress and limiting the type of 
petroleum product that may be purchased with certain funds.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 314, clarifying laboratory directed 
research and development authorities.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 315, regarding a Department of 
Energy rule on ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    Language has been included under Appalachian Regional 
Commission providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and 
allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by subtitle IV 
of title 40, United States Code, without regard to section 
14704.
    Language has been included under Delta Regional Authority 
allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by the Delta 
Regional Authority Act without regard to section 382C(b)(2), 
382F(d), 382M and 382N of said Act.
    Language has been included under Denali Commission allowing 
the expenditure of funds notwithstanding section 306(g) of the 
Denali Commission Act of 1998, and providing for cost-share 
requirements for Commission-funded construction projects in 
distressed and non-distressed communities, as defined by 
section 307 of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C, 
Title III, Public Law 105-277), and an amount not to exceed 50 
percent for non-distressed communities.
    Language has been included under Northern Border Regional 
Commission for expenditure as authorized by subtitle V of title 
40, Untied States Code, without regard to section 15751(b).
    Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for salaries 
and other support costs for the Office of the Commission, to be 
controlled by majority vote of the Commission.
    Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for official 
representation expenses and permits the use of revenues from 
licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for 
salaries and expenses to reduce the appropriation as revenues 
are received. Funding is provided to support university 
research and development, and for a Nuclear Science and 
Engineering Grant Program.
    Language has been included under Office of Inspector 
General that provides for the use of revenues from licensing 
fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and 
expenses, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United 
States Code, to reduce the appropriation as revenues are 
received.
    Language has been included under Independent Agencies, 
General Provisions, section 401, permanently improving 
transparency for the use of emergency powers at the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
    Language has been included under Independent Agencies, 
General Provisions, section 402, requiring the NRC to comply 
with certain procedures when responding to Congressional 
requests for information.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
section 501, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to 
influence congressional action on any legislation or 
appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
section 502, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement 
with a corporation which has been convicted of a felony, except 
in certain circumstances.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
section 503, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement 
with a corporation which has any unpaid Federal tax liability 
that has been assessed, except in certain circumstances.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
section 504, prohibiting the transfer of funds except pursuant 
to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in this 
or any other appropriations Act, or certain other authorities, 
and requiring a report.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
section 505, prohibiting funds in contravention of Executive 
Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental 
justice.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
section 506, prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to 
close the Yucca Mountain license application process, or for 
actions that would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain 
might be an option in the future.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
section 507, setting at $0 the amount that the proposed new 
budget authority exceeds the allocation made by the Committee 
on Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

                          Program Duplication

    No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                          Directed Rule Making

    The bill does not direct any rule making.

          Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the 
accompanying bill does not propose to repeal or amend a statute 
or part thereof.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized:

 
                                            [in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Appropriation         Net
                Agency/Program                   Last Year of    Authorization   in Last Year of   Appropriation
                                                 Authorization       Level        Authorization    in this Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps FUSRAP..................................  ..............              \1\  ...............         100,000
EERE Program Direction........................            2006          110,500          164,198         150,000
EERE Weatherization Activities................            2012        1,400,000           68,000         203,000
EERE State Energy Programs....................            2012          125,000           50,000          50,000
Nuclear Energy................................            2009          495,000          792,000         899,000
Fossil Energy.................................            2009          641,000          727,320         593,000
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves........            2014           20,000           20,000          19,950
Office of Science.............................            2013        6,007,000        4,876,000       5,071,000
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.....            2013          312,000          265,000         280,000
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing                 2012    not specified            6,000           4,000
 Program......................................
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup:
    West Valley Demonstration.................            1981            5,000            5,000          58,986
Departmental Administration...................            1984          246,963          185,682         136,000
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
    National Nuclear Security Administration:.  ..............  ...............  ...............
        Weapons Activities....................            2014        7,909,252        7,781,000       8,204,209
        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation......            2014        2,180,142        1,954,000       1,555,156
        Naval Reactors........................            2014        1,246,134        1,095,000       1,215,342
        Office of the Administrator...........            2014          382,000          377,000         386,863
Defense Environmental Cleanup.................            2014        5,015,409        5,000,000       4,801,280
Other Defense Activities......................            2014          758,658          755,000         754,000
Power Marketing Administrations:
    Southwestern..............................            1984           40,254           36,229          11,400
    Western Area..............................            1984          259,700          194,630          93,372
Appalachian Regional Commission...............            2013          110,000           68,263          80,317
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.......            2014           29,915           28,000          29,150
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................            1985          460,000          448,200         172,278
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:

        Department or Activity                                    Amount
Bureau of Reclamation: Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program 
    Account...................................................  $500,000
Department of Energy: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve...... 6,000,000
Department of Energy: Clean Coal Technology................... 6,600,000
Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy..18,111,000
Department of Energy: Science................................. 5,257,000
Department of Energy: Nuclear Energy.......................... 1,046,000
Department of Energy: Fossil Energy Research and Development.. 8,243,000
Department of Energy: Electricity Delivery and Energy 
    Reliability............................................... 4,809,000
Department of Energy: Advanced Research Projects Agency--
    Energy....................................................   619,000
Department of Energy: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........37,000,000
Department of Energy: Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation 
    and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration........ 1,720,000

                 Comparison With the Budget Resolution

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares 
the levels of new budget authority provided in the bill with 
the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget 
Act.

                                            [In millions of dollars]
 
                                                         302(b) Allocation                   This Bill
 
                                                       Budget                          Budget
                                                     Authority        Outlays        Authority        Outlays
 
Mandatory.......................................            n.a.            n.a.               0            0\1\
Discretionary...................................          34,010          37,831          34,010          37,831
 
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

                      Five Year Outlay Projections

    Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, the following table contains five-year 
projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office of 
outlays associated with the budget authority provided in the 
accompanying bill:

                        [In millions of dollars]
 
 
 
Projection of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2014..............................................         20,141\1\
    2015..............................................             9,554
    2016..............................................             2,988
    2017..............................................               643
    2018 and future years.............................               600
 
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

               Assistance to State and Local Governments

    Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State 
and local governments is as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]
 
 
 
Budget Authority......................................                94
Outlays...............................................             19\1\
 
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote 
on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the 
names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed 
below:



            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF NITA LOWEY AND MARCY KAPTUR

    We commend Chairman Rogers and Chairman Simpson for their 
efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill 
funds critical water resource projects, supports science 
activities necessary for American competitiveness, and 
contributes to our national defense through vital weapons, 
naval reactor research, and nonproliferation funding, all 
priorities that unite rather than divide us. Chairman Simpson 
has worked hard to incorporate the interests of Members from 
both parties. As a result, the bill is largely a reflection of 
priorities from both sides of the aisle.
    The subcommittee's allocation is $34,010,000,000, an 
increase of $326,862,000 from the Administration's budget 
request and $50,499,000 below the 2014 level. While the non-
defense allocation for the bill is the same as 2014, the 
defense allocation is $50,000,000 below 2014. Within the 
constraints placed on the committee by the overall budget 
number, the allocation is a reasonable one; yet, the allocation 
still necessitated difficult decisions, particularly within the 
defense activities.
    We commend the Chairman for increasing Corps of Engineers 
funding by $959,499,000 above the President's woefully 
inadequate request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will 
continue. The bill also provides more than $1,100,000,000 for 
projects funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, in 
excess of $185,000,000 above the budget request. This funding 
will allow preventive and proactive investments necessary for 
the economy and the safety of American citizens. As we are 
reminded often by increasingly common weather events, in every 
case, it makes more fiscal sense to prevent a disaster than to 
respond. The funding will also allow investments in the 
nation's ports and waterways, which are critical to ensuring 
that American made goods can move to market, both domestically 
and abroad. We firmly believe that our underinvestment in 
infrastructure continues to hamper economic gains and prolongs 
the current employment crisis.
    The Corps of Engineers currently has a backlog of 
authorized projects in excess of $60,000,000,000, without 
including the deauthorization of $18,000,000,000 in the recent 
Water Resource Reform and Development Act. Even limiting the 
figure to those projects currently budgeted, the balance to 
complete these ongoing projects is more than $20,000,000,000. 
While this bill ensures increased investment beyond that 
included in the budget request, we should be doing more to 
build infrastructure and create jobs, not less. Federal support 
of water resource projects creates construction jobs and 
indirect economic benefits that encourage local businesses and 
individuals to embrace risk and make critical investments in 
their communities. The bill does not include funding for new 
projects. While we understand the Chairman's reasoning, we must 
start investing in projects that meet tomorrow's needs, not 
yesterday's.
    The Science and ARPA-E accounts, critical to the 
competitiveness of our nation, are equal to the level of 
funding provided in 2014. With a return on investment of 20 to 
67 percent, publicly funded research grows our economy and 
helps the United States maintain its position as the global 
leader in innovation. If we truly wish to achieve energy 
independence and tackle the challenges posed by climate change, 
the federal government must continue to prioritize investments 
in cutting edge research at our national laboratories and 
universities along with supporting advancements in high-
potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early 
for private-sector investment.
    With regard to the applied energy programs at the 
Department of Energy, investments in energy technology programs 
are skewed too heavily toward fossil fuels, that undermines the 
future of a clean energy economy. While we must provide for 
critical research and development for the nuclear and fossil 
energy sectors that currently provide the bulk of our current 
electricity generation, but continued and sustained research 
and development programs in renewable energy are necessary and 
appropriate. Renewable energy has achieved cost competitiveness 
in some areas and this investment can drive down the costs of 
existing technology and provide breakthroughs in others. While 
current trends show that the nation will meet 97 percent of our 
energy needs through domestic production by 2035, investment in 
portfolio diversity remain necessary for the long term. The 
United States can leverage its strength--innovation--to restore 
the United States to a position of global leadership in clean 
energy. This effort is a critical national priority, with 
implications for our economic competitiveness, national 
security, and environmental legacy.
    Our nation's chief strategic vulnerability is its 
dependence on foreign energy imports and our lack of energy 
independence. The United States has spent $2,300,000,000,000 
importing foreign petroleum since 2003. This represents 
thousands of dollars out of the pockets of every hard-working 
American spent, not in much-needed American job creation, but 
overseas, assisting our competitors in developing their 
economies and their energy futures. Our republic will not 
compete in the 21st Century and beyond if we further reduce 
investments in this area and cede the energy future to other 
countries.
    Nonproliferation programs are our first line of defense and 
the most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent goal of 
securing and reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade 
material. While the Chairman reprioritizes within the account 
to meet the most pressing needs, the defense allocation 
prevents the bill from overcoming the disappointing reduction, 
some $398,844,000 below 2014 to these activities contained in 
the budget request.
    Within the weapons account we very much appreciate the 
Chairman's decision to restore the funding to the dismantlement 
of retired weapons. The Chairman continues the strong oversight 
of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) which 
has been plagued by breathtaking cost overruns and schedule 
delays. While we understand the need to modernize a complex 
built substantially in the 1950's, we question whether the 
organization has the necessary tools and processes to continue 
to manage large increases to these activities year after year. 
Further, we question whether the NNSA can objectively plan for 
its mission requirements. Year after year, the NNSA informs 
Congress that certain investments are critical, the minimum 
required, and the only option, only to return with a more 
affordable alternative once faced with budgetary realities. The 
nuclear deterrent is too important and resources too precious 
to waste funds pursuing capital investments which are 
unnecessary.
    We are concerned that the funding the bill includes for 
Environmental Management (EM) activities is insufficient to 
meet the federal government's legal obligations to clean up its 
defense nuclear waste. This program is critical to addressing 
the environmental legacies of the Cold War and the Manhattan 
Project. Given that EM's portfolio is one of the nation's 
largest environmental and financial liabilities, we have the 
responsibility to address the waste and contamination in the 
affected communities in a timely and competent manner. This, 
again, was driven by a defense allocation which left the 
Chairman little choice.
    While the funding levels of the bill are fair, the 
inclusion of controversial riders is an unnecessary diversion 
from our primary responsibility--ensuring that taxpayer funds 
are invested wisely in Federal programs which will contribute 
to the economic vitality of our Nation.
    Most concerning is the inclusion of two water riders which, 
taken together, risk environmental gains and protection of the 
world's most precious resource: water. The first Clean Water 
Act prohibition prevents the Corps of Engineers from taking 
steps to clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water 
Act, and lock in place a widely-acknowledged state of confusion 
about the scope of the law's pollution control programs. The 
second prevents the Corps of Engineers from using funds to 
``develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any 
change'' to regulations pertaining to the definitions of the 
terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' under 
the Clean Water Act. This rider would lock in industry 
loopholes, leaving many of our nation's waterways vulnerable to 
harmful pollution.
    Lastly, the inclusion of the rider allowing guns to be 
carried on all Corps of Engineers lands injects into the bill 
an unnecessarily partisan topic that is unwarranted. The Second 
Amendment provides a right that we do not dispute at its core. 
However, we do disagree with the notion that reasonable limits 
on where guns can be carried are an infringement upon that 
right. In an era when a school shooting seems to engender 
collective shrugs, we see no need to contribute to an 
environment where guns are commonplace in recreational areas 
where families are trying to escape the pressures of everyday 
life.
    In spite of these concerns, we would like to reiterate our 
appreciation for the Chairman's work with us on many issues, 
ensuring the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee 
continues its tradition of bipartisanship--the Subcommittee has 
operated collaboratively and effectively for many years and, 
within the constraints facing the bill, it largely addresses 
the interests we have expressed. We look forward to working 
with the Chairman and the Members of the Committee to advance 
the process and complete the task before us.
                                   Nita Lowey
                                   Marcy Kaptur