Report text available as:

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




114th Congress         }  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES  {        Report
 1st Session           }                            {          114-91
======================================================================



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016

                                _______
                                

 April 24, 2015.--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. 2028]

    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, 2016, and for other purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page Number

                                                            Bill Report
Introduction...............................................
                                                                      5
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil..........................     2
                                                                     11
                Investigations.............................     2
                                                                     19
                Construction...............................     3
                                                                     27
                Mississippi River and Tributaries..........     4
                                                                     33
                Operation and Maintenance..................     4
                                                                     36
                Regulatory Program.........................     6
                                                                     59
                Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
                    Program................................     6
                                                                     60
                Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies......     6
                                                                     60
                Expenses...................................     6
                                                                     61
                Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
                    Army (Civil Works).....................     7
                                                                     62
        General Provisions.................................     8
                                                                     62
II. Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project...............................    12
                                                                     63
                Central Utah Project Completion Account....    12
                                                                     63
        Bureau of Reclamation:
                Water and Related Resources................    13
                                                                     65
                Central Valley Project Restoration Fund....    14
                                                                     74
                California Bay-Delta Restoration...........    15
                                                                     75
                Policy and Administration..................    15
                                                                     75
                Administrative Provision...................    16
                                                                     76
        General Provisions.................................    16
                                                                     76
III. Department of Energy:
        Introduction.......................................
                                                                     76
        Committee Recommendations..........................
                                                                     81
        Energy Programs:
                Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.....    20
                                                                     82
                Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability    21
                                                                     89
                Nuclear Energy.............................    21
                                                                     92
                Fossil Energy Research and Development.....    22
                                                                     95
                Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.....    22
                                                                     99
                Strategic Petroleum Reserve................    23
                                                                     99
                Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.........    23
                                                                    100
                Energy Information Administration..........    23
                                                                    100
                Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup..........    23
                                                                    100
                Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
                    Decommissioning Fund...................    24
                                                                    102
                Science....................................    24
                                                                    103
                Nuclear Waste Disposal.....................    25
                                                                    109
                Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy..    25
                                                                    109
                Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan 
                    Guarantee Program......................    26
                                                                    110
                Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing 
                    Loan Program...........................    27
                                                                    110
                Departmental Administration................    27
                                                                    111
                Office of the Inspector General............    28
                                                                    112
        Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
        National Nuclear Security Administration:
                Weapons Activities.........................    28
                                                                    113
                Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...........    29
                                                                    121
                Naval Reactors.............................    30
                                                                    124
                Federal Salaries and Expenses..............    30
                                                                    125
        Environmental and Other Defense Activities.........    30
                                                                    125
                Defense Environmental Cleanup..............    30
                                                                    125
                Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 
                    and Decommissioning....................    31
                                                                    129
                Other Defense Activities...................    31
                                                                    129
        Power Marketing Administrations:
                Bonneville Power Administration............    32
                                                                    131
                Southeastern Power Administration..........    32
                                                                    131
                Southwestern Power Administration..........    34
                                                                    131
                Western Area Power Administration..........    35
                                                                    132
                Falcon and Amistad Operating and 
                    Maintenance Fund.......................    37
                                                                    132
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    38
                                                                    133
        Committee Recommendation...........................
                                                                    133
        General Provisions.................................    39
                                                                    170
IV. Independent Agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    49
                                                                    170
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    50
                                                                    171
        Delta Regional Authority...........................    50
                                                                    172
        Denali Commission..................................    50
                                                                    172
        Northern Border Regional Commission................    51
                                                                    173
        Southeast Crescent Regional Commission.............    51
                                                                    173
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    51
                                                                    173
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    53
                                                                    176
        Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska 
            Natural Gas Transportation Projects............    54
                                                                    176
V. General Provisions
House of Representatives Report Requirements...............
                                                                    177

                SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal 
Year 2016. The following table summarizes appropriations for 
fiscal year 2015, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended 
in the bill for fiscal year 2016.


                              INTRODUCTION

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2016 totals $35,402,978,000, $1,200,701,000 above 
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2015 and $633,036,000 
below the President's budget request. Total defense funding is 
$18,883,978,000, $1,039,978,000 above the amount appropriated 
in fiscal year 2015 and $251,505,000 below the budget request. 
Total non-defense funding is $16,519,000,000, $160,723,000 
above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2015 and 
$381,531,000 below the budget request.
    Title I of the bill provides $5,596,750,000 for the Civil 
Works programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
$142,250,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $864,750,000 above the 
budget request. Total funding for activities eligible for 
reimbursement from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is 
estimated at $1,178,000,000, which is $73,000,000 above fiscal 
year 2015 and $263,000,000 above the budget request. The bill 
makes use of all estimated annual revenues from the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund.
    Title II provides $1,104,542,000 for the Department of the 
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $35,458,000 below 
fiscal year 2015 and $1,426,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee recommends $1,094,668,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation, $35,458,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $4,000,000 
below the budget request. The Committee recommends $9,874,000 
for the Central Utah Project, the same as fiscal year 2015 and 
$2,574,000 above the budget request.
    Title III provides $29,012,069,000 for the Department of 
Energy, $1,095,272,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$1,515,067,000 below the budget request. Funding for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which includes 
nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation, 
naval reactors, and federal salaries and expenses, is 
$12,329,000,000, $921,705,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$236,400,000 below the budget request.
    Funding for energy programs within the Department of 
Energy, which includes basic science research and the applied 
energy programs, is $10,324,007,000, $91,265,000 above fiscal 
year 2015 and $1,230,957,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee recommends $5,100,000,000 for the Office of Science, 
$1,657,774,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 
$936,161,000 for Nuclear Energy; $605,000,000 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 $5,909,743,000, $38,743,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$91,719,000 above the budget request.
    Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided 
at the requested levels.
    Title IV provides $297,785,000 for several Independent 
Agencies, $28,805,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $16,875,000 
above the budget request. Net funding for the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission is $140,959,000, $23,101,000 above fiscal 
year 2015 and $20,811,000 above the budget request.

                     Overview of the Recommendation

    The Committee recommendation continues the strong 
investments in American infrastructure contained in the fiscal 
year 2015 Act. The recommendation rejects the Administration's 
ill-considered request to cut approximately $708,000,000 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 reduction would have a detrimental impact 
on the nation's economic competitiveness and defenses against 
flooding. The Committee strongly encourages the Administration 
to request a fiscal year 2017 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 
key advances in efficiency and emissions reduction.

                       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. The recommendation strongly supports the Department's 
proposals to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile, increase 
investment in the NNSA's infrastructure, prevent the 
proliferation of nuclear materials, and provide for the needs 
of the naval nuclear propulsion program.
    Within funding for the NNSA's Weapons Activities, the 
recommendation continues support of the multi-year 
modernization plans for 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 
relied on overly optimistic timelines and invalid cost 
assumptions. The Committee will continue to emphasize 
conservative and affordable options for life extension programs 
and major facility construction that are clearly defined, 
resource-informed, and properly scoped to meet the timelines 
required. The Committee is concerned that though the costs of 
the overall program are escalating, the NNSA is producing less, 
taking longer, and scaling back scope just to keep up pace with 
the cost growth. To restore credibility, the NNSA must take 
early action to resolve the inconsistencies between its goals 
for modernization and its ability to achieve those goals. In 
the meantime, the Committee will continue to hold the NNSA 
accountable for delivering those missions within scope, cost, 
and schedule requirements.
    The recommendation provides strong support for Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation. The Committee recognizes the NNSA's 
responsiveness in refining its nonproliferation strategies to 
meet the changing geopolitical environment and to improve the 
effectiveness of its programs in targeting the greatest 
threats. The recommendation provides no new funds for projects 
in Russia and the Committee awaits submission of a Secretarial 
waiver for nonproliferation work with the Russian Federation 
should such activities be determined to be in the national 
security interest by the Secretary of Energy. The Committee 
continues to view the NNSA's programs as important for reducing 
international dangers to U.S. national security posed by the 
proliferation of nuclear technologies to other nation states 
and the threat of nuclear terrorism, rather than focused on 
domestic security activities that are the responsibility of 
other agencies.
    The Committee also strongly supports the activities to 
maintain our country's nuclear naval fleet, which is funded 
through the Naval Reactors account. The recommendation 
continues to prioritize the multi-year development needs of the 
Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement reactor 
program. 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.

                     Investments in Infrastructure

    The water resource infrastructure funded by the 
recommendation is a critical component of ensuring a robust 
national economy and of supporting American competitiveness in 
international markets. 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 public safety, businesses, and much of 
this country's food-producing lands. The Bureau of Reclamation 
supplies reliable water to approximately ten percent of this 
country's population and to much of its fertile agricultural 
lands. Both agencies make significant contributions to national 
electricity production through hydropower facilities.
    The U.S. marine transportation industry supports 
$2,000,000,000,000 in commerce and creates employment for more 
than 13 million people. As the agency responsible for our 
nation's federal waterways, the Army Corps of Engineers 
maintains 926 ports and 25,000 miles of commercial channels 
serving 41 states. The maintenance of these commercial 
waterways is directly tied to the ability of this country to 
ship its manufactured and bulk products, as well as to compete 
with the ports of neighboring countries for the business of 
ships arriving from around the world. These waterways handled 
foreign commerce valued at more than $1,774,000,000,000 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 makes key changes to the budget request to 
ensure that the Corps has the necessary tools to continue to 
support America's shipping infrastructure.
    The flood protection infrastructure that the Corps builds 
or maintains reduces the risk of flooding to people, 
businesses, and other public infrastructure investments. In 
fact, Corps projects prevented damages of $13,400,000,000 in 
2013 alone. Between 1928 and 2013, each inflation-adjusted 
dollar invested in these projects prevented $7.92 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. These facilities deliver water to one of every five 
western farmers resulting in approximately 10 million acres of 
irrigated land that produces 60 percent of the nation's 
vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. Additionally, 
these facilities deliver water to more than 31 million people 
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 reliable, safe water for 
their families and their businesses and many municipal and 
industrial users would face critical water shortages.
    The Corps and Reclamation are the nation's largest and 
second largest producers of hydropower, respectively. Combined 
these federal hydropower facilities generate more than 112 
billion kilowatt-hours, enough to power more than 10 million 
homes, annually. Gross revenues from the sale of this power 
reach nearly $6,000,000,000 annually.

                         National Energy Policy

    In 2012 the President unveiled an ``all of the above'' 
energy strategy designed to take advantage and utilize all 
sources of American-made energy. Since that time, each budget 
request has proposed increased funding for energy efficiency 
and renewable energy at the expense of more reliable energy 
sources. A true ``all of the above'' approach has to measure a 
vision for the future against the practical realities of the 
present. While investments in renewable energy are important 
and vital to a coherent national energy policy, they represent 
a fraction of the energy production in this country. Fossil and 
nuclear sources provide nearly 85 percent of all electricity 
generation in this nation. An energy policy that divests from 
these sources plans for an unrealistic future.
    The Administration's severe regulations on carbon pollution 
from existing and new fossil-fueled electric power plants only 
further the inconsistencies in the budget request's ``all of 
the above'' approach. These regulatory actions and the 
Administration's subsequent low prioritization of fossil energy 
sources reveals a broken ``all of the above'' approach that the 
Committee has to rebalance each year.
    The Committee continues its long-standing support for the 
investment of taxpayer funds across the spectrum of all energy 
technologies. A national energy policy can only be successful 
if it maintains stability and resiliency while planning for 
long-term strategic goals of energy security, independence, and 
prosperity for the nation. The Committee recommends a balanced 
approach that focuses on improving the efficiency and 
effectiveness of fossil fuels while also investing in the 
latest technological breakthroughs of renewable fuel sources.

                    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................  Direction on Principles and
                                          Guidelines
Army Corps of Engineers................  Brief on Legacy Studies
Army Corps of Engineers................  Direction on 333 waiver process
Army Corps of Engineers................  Direction on new Federal Flood
                                          Risk Management Standard
Army Corps of Engineers................  Guidance on ratings systems for
                                          allocating additional funds
Army Corps of Engineers................  Guidance on 2016 Work Plan
                                          submission
Army Corps of Engineers................  Direction on prioritization of
                                          ongoing studies
Army Corps of Engineers................  Direction on North Atlantic
                                          Coast Comprehensive Study
Army Corps of Engineers................  Direction on New Starts
Army Corps of Engineers................  Brief on ``Remaining Items''
Army Corps of Engineers/Investigations.  Report on Cano Martin Pena,
                                          Puerto Rico
Army Corps of Engineers/Construction...  Guidance on allocating
                                          additional funding
Army Corps of Engineers/Mississippi      Guidance on allocating
 River and Tributaries.                   additional funding
Army Corps of Engineers/Mississippi      Direction on Mississippi River
 River and Tributaries.                   Commission funding
Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and    Guidance on allocating
 Maintenance.                             additional funding
Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and    Direction Dredged Material
 Maintenance.                             Disposal
Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and    Report on Ririe Reservoir
 Maintenance.
Army Corps of Engineers/Regulatory       Guidance on Congressional
 Program.                                 interpretation of Clean Water
                                          Act
Army Corps of Engineers/FUSRAP.........  Guidance on investigation and
                                          study at former Sylvania site
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses.......  Report on Public-Private
                                          Parnerships
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses.......  Report on Flood Damage
                                          Reduction Projects on Federal
                                          Lands
Army Corps of Engineers/General          Reprogramming requirements
 Provisions.
Army Corps of Engineers/General          Restriction on use of
 Provisions.                              continuing contracts
Army Corps of Engineers/General          Restriction on committing funds
 Provisions.                              beyond appropriated amounts
Army Corps of Engineers/General          Restriction on changing certain
 Provisions.                              Clean Water Act definitions
Army Corps of Engineers/General          Restriction on revising federal
 Provisions.                              jurisdiction under the Clean
                                          Water Act
Army Corps of Engineers/General          Restriction on using funds to
 Provisions.                              require permits for the
                                          discharge of dredged material.
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related  Report on Ririe Reservoir
 Resources.
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related  Direction on CALFED feasibility
 Resources.                               studies
Bureau of Reclamation/General            Reprogramming requirements
 Provisions.
Department of Energy...................  Report on future years energy
                                          program
Department of Energy...................  Guidance on prior-year balances
                                          greater than five years old
Department of Energy...................  Report on cost audit coverage
Department of Energy...................  Report on alleviation of
                                          poverty
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...................  Report on Office of Technology
                                          Transitions
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency.  Direction on funding incubator
                                          programs
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency.  Direction on developing list of
                                          bioenergy technologies
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency.  Report on list of bioenergy
                                          technologies
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency.  Direction on Solar Technologies
                                          program funding
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency.  Direction on hydrokinetic power
                                          funding allocations
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency.  Report on U.S. supply of
                                          lithium
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency.  Direction on building energy
                                          codes
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency.  Direction on ``smart home''
                                          electronics study
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency.  Report on Weatherization
                                          Assistance Program
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency.  Guidance on social cost of
                                          carbon
Department of Energy/Electricity         Report on energy security
 Delivery.
Department of Energy/Electricity         Report on EMP vulnerability
 Delivery.
Department of Energy/Nuclear...........  Direction to support an SMR
                                          design award
Department of Energy/Nuclear...........  Direction on ATR update
Department of Energy/Nuclear...........  Report on spent fuel plans
Department of Energy/Fossil............  Guidance on coal research and
                                          development
Department of Energy/Fossil............  Direction on interagency
                                          research plan regarding
                                          hydraulic fracturing
Department of Energy/Non-Defense         Report on Mercury Export Ban
 Environmental Cleanup.                   Act
Department of Energy/UED&D.............;  Report on uranium transfers
Department of Energy/Science...........  Report on exascale computing
Department of Energy/Departmental        Report on Working Capital Fund
 Administration.
Department of Energy/Departmental        Direction on renewable fuel
 Administration.                          standards
Department of Energy/Departmental        Direction on technical
 Administration.                          assistance to Ukraine
Department of Energy/Weapons...........  Guidance on definition of a
                                          ``life extension program''
Department of Energy/Weapons...........  Direction on costs of the W88
                                          life extension program
Department of Energy/Weapons...........  Report on red team assessment
                                          of alternatives
Department of Energy/Weapons...........  Guidance on infrastructure
                                          budget structure
Department of Energy/Weapons...........  Report on RLWTF project root
                                          causes
Department of Energy/Weapons...........  Guidance on funding for UPF
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear     Guidance on new
 Nonproliferation.                        nonproliferation projects in
                                          Russia
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear     Direction on offsetting costs
 Nonproliferation.                        associated with material
                                          removal
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear     Report on Part 810 Process
 Nonproliferation.                        Improvement Program
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors....  Direction on an update of
                                          progress regarding ATR
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors....  Report on advanced fuel system
                                          using LEU fuel
Department of Energy/Defense             Report on Hanford site
 Environmental Cleanup.
Department of Energy/Defense             Report on IFDP
 Environmental Cleanup.
Department of Energy/Other Defense       Direction on Office of
 Activities.                              Independent Enterprise
                                          Assessments annual report
Department of Energy/Other Defense       Report on Graded Security
 Activities.                              Posture
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.  Prohibit certain multi year
                                          funding agreements in Office
                                          of Science
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.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board  Report on tank maintenance and
                                          upgrade requirement at Hanford
                                          and Savannah River.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission..........  Direction on allocation of any
                                          reduction in available
                                          resources
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..........  Direction on reducing corporate
                                          support
Nuclear Regulatory Commission..........  Report on comprehensive
                                          workforce review and strategic
                                          plan
Nuclear Regulatory Commission..........  Direction on rulemaking process
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......................  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 2016 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

    The fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Civil Works 
program of the Corps of Engineers is $4,732,000,000, a decrease 
of $722,500,000 from fiscal year 2015. After adjusting for the 
rescission of $28,000,000 of prior-year appropriations in the 
fiscal year 2015 Act, the budget request represents a reduction 
from fiscal year 2015 of $750,500,000 (-14%). Each of the four 
main project-based accounts would see a sharp decrease under 
the budget request. The Construction account would see the 
largest dollar reduction (-$467,489,000) and largest percentage 
reduction (-29%). The Investigations, Mississippi River and 
Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance accounts are reduced 
by 20, 26, and 7 percent, respectively.
    Once again the Administration's claims to understand the 
importance of infrastructure ring hollow when it comes to water 
resource infrastructure investments. 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 (-16 and 
-20 percent, respectively). Within the navigation mission area, 
the budget request proposes to reduce funding for activities 
eligible for reimbursement from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund by $190,000,000 from fiscal year 2015. Capital 
improvements funded in part from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund are reduced by $49,000,000 from fiscal year 2015. Funding 
for flood and storm damage reduction activities at each stage 
of the process--studies, construction, and operation and 
maintenance--would be reduced below fiscal year 2015 if the 
budget request were enacted.
    Once again, however, the Committee rejects the low priority 
placed on infrastructure in the budget request. Instead, the 
Committee allocates $810,046,000 above the budget request for 
additional investments in navigation and flood and storm damage 
reduction improvements.

                         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 2016 is estimated to be 
approximately $8,989,000,000.
    The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 
2014 included target annual appropriations levels for use of 
HMTF receipts. 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.
    For fiscal year 2016, the Committee provides an estimated 
$1,178,000,000 for HMTF-related activities, an increase of 
$73,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $263,000,000 above the 
budget request. This substantial increase should allow the 
Corps to make progress on the backlog of dredging needs.

                        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 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. Two 
statutory changes enacted last year, however, will lead to the 
availability of additional revenues to stand as the required 
cost-share for some additional work on the inland waterways 
system. These changes were the reduction in the portion of the 
costs of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project that is to be 
derived from the IWTF to 15 percent and the increase in the 
fuel tax to $0.29 per gallon from $0.20 per gallon.
    It should be noted that funds from both the General 
Treasury and the IWTF are counted under overall discretionary 
spending limits, which remain relatively flat from fiscal year 
2015. Nevertheless, for fiscal year 2016, the Committee 
provides appropriations making use of all estimated annual 
revenues from the IWTF. This funding includes the budget 
request of $232,000,000 for construction of the Olmsted Locks 
and Dam project and the Locks 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River 
project, as well as $108,000,000 above the budget request for 
additional capital improvements to the inland waterways system. 
The Committee also allocates $42,000,000 above the budget 
request for additional operation and maintenance activities on 
the inland waterways.

                      PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS

    Concerns persist that the effort to update the Water 
Resources Principles and Guidelines did not proceed 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 or the final Interagency Guidelines 
released in December 2014. 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 2016.
    The Corps has been working diligently on assessing the 
impacts of the revised Principles and Requirements and 
Interagency Guidelines on the Civil Works program, consistent 
with congressional direction provided in the explanatory 
statement accompanying the fiscal year 2015 Act. The Committee 
looks forward to being briefed on this assessment in the near 
future. After an opportunity to review the assessment, the 
Committee may have further directions on this issue.

                         PLANNING MODERNIZATION

    The Committee remains strongly supportive of 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 Committee is aware that multiple 
studies, termed Legacy Studies, were rightly not required to 
transition to the new SMART planning process. The Corps shall 
be prepared to brief the Committee not later than 60 days after 
the enactment of this Act on the status of the Legacy Studies, 
including a schedule for bringing each study to completion.
    North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study Focus Areas.--
Several of the nine identified focus areas, including the three 
areas proposed for funding in fiscal year 2016, involve 
geographic scopes and levels of complexity not seen in the 
typical Corps study. As such, confining these studies to the 
standard 3x3x3 planning restrictions for time and cost is not 
advisable. Rather than starting with the attempt to meet these 
arbitrary timing and funding goals and requesting waivers at 
the end of the study process, the Corps is directed to evaluate 
each focus area expeditiously to determine the appropriate 
scope, schedule, and cost, without the initial time and cost 
limits of the 3x3x3 process.

                 FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD

    On January 30, 2015, the President issued Executive Order 
13690 establishing a new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard 
and amending Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management). The 
Administration describes it as furtherance of the President's 
Climate Action Plan and as building on the work done by the 
interagency task force in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.
    The Committee has heard numerous concerns about the new 
standard from many potentially-affected stakeholders. These 
concerns include the process by which the standard was 
developed, the lack of clarity as to which specific programs 
and activities will be affected, and the uncertainty related to 
how each agency will implement the new standard. The Committee 
takes these concerns seriously and will continue to closely 
monitor the Administration's activities related to this new 
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard.
    The new standard and draft revised guidelines for 
implementing Executive Order 11988 are currently out for public 
comment until early May 2015. Executive Order 13690 directs 
each agency to issue or amend existing regulations and 
procedures to comply with the order and to submit to the 
National Security Council staff within 30 days of the closing 
of the public comment period for the revised guidelines an 
implementation plan that contains milestones and a timeline for 
implementation of the executive order and the standard. The 
Corps is directed to submit this implementation plan to the 
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not 
later than 3 days after it has been submitted to the National 
Security Council staff.

                    FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

    Historically, the Committee has encouraged the 
Administration to provide five-year investment plans for all 
the agencies within the Energy and Water Development 
jurisdiction, particularly the Corps. The five-year plan should 
be based on realistic assumptions of project funding needs. It 
is the Committee's 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 appropriations 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 in fiscal year 2014 the Corps was 
directed to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the optimum 
timeline and funding requirements to complete each of the 
ongoing projects which received construction funding in any of 
fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, 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 the 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 2016. 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.

                  ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK

    As mentioned above, the budget request is woefully 
inadequate for meeting the critical water resource 
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 $879,807,000 in additional 
funding for ongoing work within the Investigations, 
Construction, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation 
and Maintenance accounts. This funding is 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 allocations of this 
funding.
    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 2016. This eligibility includes reimbursements, as 
authorized by law and consistent with statutory funding 
limitations. 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 requirements; 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 continued lack of transparency in how work 
plan allocation decisions are made is troubling. The 
Committee's position on this issue has not changed from 
previous years--a list of general factors and management 
controls considered when making allocation decisions is not 
sufficient as a response to congressional direction nor is it 
sufficient explanation to federal taxpayers generally or local 
sponsors interested in improving their projects' 
competitiveness specifically.
    The Committee expects considerable improvement in the 
quality and detail of information provided in fiscal year 2016 
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.'' The Corps is reminded that these funds 
are in addition to the Administration's budget request. 
Administration budget metrics shall not be a reason to 
disqualify a study or project from being funded.
    Work plan.--Not later than 60 days after the enactment of 
this Act, the Corps shall provide to the Committees on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a work plan including 
the following information: (1) a detailed description of the 
ratings system(s) developed and used to evaluate studies and 
projects; (2) delineation of how these funds are to be 
allocated; (3) a summary of the work to be accomplished with 
each allocation, including phase of work; and (4) a list of all 
studies and projects that were considered eligible for funding 
but did not receive funding, including an explanation of 
whether the study or project could have used funds in fiscal 
year 2016 and the specific reasons each study or project was 
considered as being less competitive for an allocation of 
funds.
    Full allocation of funds.--It is expected that all of the 
additional funding provided will be allocated to specific 
programs, projects, or activities. The focus of the allocation 
process should favor the obligation of funds for work in fiscal 
year 2016 rather than expenditures. With the significant 
backlog of work in the Corps' inventory, there is absolutely no 
reason for funds provided above the budget request to remain 
unallocated.

                               NEW STARTS

    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 years 2014 and 2015 Acts allowed the Corps to initiate a 
limited number of new studies and new construction projects. In 
each year, the Corps was required 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. 
Unfortunately, in both years the Administration submitted an 
analysis that fell far short of what was required. Due to the 
significant uncertainty remaining about the impact of recently 
initiated projects, the Committee recommends no new starts in 
any account in fiscal year 2016. The Corps is directed to 
prioritize ongoing studies and projects in an effort to 
complete them.
    One exception to this restriction on new starts is the 
proposed Disposition of Completed Projects line item within the 
Investigations account. This item funds study efforts intended 
to reduce federal responsibilities, rather than study efforts 
that will result in new federal projects added to the existing 
backlog of construction and operation and maintenance projects. 
Therefore, the Committee believes an exception is appropriate 
and has included funding for this line item.
    North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study Focus Areas.--The 
budget request proposed a single line item intended to fund 
feasibility activities for three focus areas identified in the 
North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study issued in January 
2015. This line item was identified as a new start in the 
budget request since the initial work--the Comprehensive 
Study--was funded in the supplemental appropriations Act 
following Hurricane Sandy. While the Corps' restraint in this 
instance is appreciated, the Committee believes it is 
unnecessary. Funding is included for the three focus areas as 
separate and individual feasibility studies. The Corps is 
directed to maintain this characterization (individual, ongoing 
activities) when making future funding decisions for study 
activities for these three focus areas, as well as the other 
six focus areas identified in the Comprehensive Study.
    Definition of a New Start.--The change in funding format 
prompted by the prohibition on congressional earmarks has 
resulted in greater significance for the Administration's 
definition of a new start. Unfortunately, the Administration 
has been less than transparent with the Committee on this issue 
as well. Without this information, the Committee's ability to 
assert its prerogative as to whether specific projects are new 
starts or ongoing projects is seriously limited. Therefore, the 
Administration is directed to submit to the Committees on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 30 
days after the enactment of this Act its definition of a new 
start, including any relevant guidelines or criteria used to 
make project-specific determinations. The Administration is 
reminded that no new start shall be required when moving from 
the feasibility phase to the preconstruction engineering and 
design (PED) phase.

                        ELIMINATING DUPLICATION

    The budget request includes numerous line items under 
``Remaining Items'' in the Investigations and Operation and 
Maintenance accounts. The budget justifications for several of 
these items seem to describe similar activities, thereby 
raising the question of whether these activities are truly 
distinct or whether overlapping or duplicative missions are 
leading to inefficiencies within the agency. The Corps is 
directed to be prepared to brief the Committees on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 30 
days after the enactment of this Act on whether the agency 
believes that each line item under ``Remaining Items'' is 
appropriate as a separate line item or whether some line items 
could be combined to eliminate overlapping or duplicative 
activities.

                               ASIAN CARP

    The threat of Asian Carp to the Great Lakes remains a 
concern for the Committee. The Army Corps of Engineers 
continues to play a critical role in preventing, controlling, 
and managing the threat of Asian carp. The Committee expects 
the Corps to expedite authorized actions related to Asian Carp, 
in particular the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin 
Study (GLMRIS) Brandon Road study. The Corps recently 
transferred management of the study to the Rock Island 
District. While this transfer may have been warranted, the 
Committee has not yet received a comprehensive explanation as 
to how this transfer will ensure the study will be executed 
efficiently and expeditiously.

               CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING

    To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2016 
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 $5,596,750,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers, $142,250,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $864,750,000 
above the budget request.
    A table summarizing the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
appropriation, the fiscal year 2016 budget request, and the 
Committee-recommended levels is provided below:

                                             (Dollars in thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2015         FY 2016
                             Account                                  enacted         request       Cmte. rec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations..................................................        $122,000         $97,000        $110,000
Construction....................................................       1,639,489       1,172,000       1,631,000
Mississippi River and tributaries...............................         302,000         225,000         275,000
Operation and maintenance.......................................       2,908,511       2,710,000       3,058,000
Regulatory program..............................................         200,000         205,000         200,000
FUSRAP..........................................................         101,500         104,000         104,000
Flood control and coastal emergencies...........................          28,000          34,000          34,000
Expenses........................................................         178,000         180,000         180,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works...           3,000           5,000           4,750
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        TOTAL, Program Level....................................       5,482,500       4,732,000       5,596,750
Rescission......................................................         -28,000           - - -           - - -
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        NET APPROPRIATION, Corps of Engineers--Civil............       5,454,500       4,732,000       5,596,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             INVESTIGATIONS

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $122,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        97,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       110,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       -12,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       +13,000,000
 

    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 $110,000,000, 
$12,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $13,000,000 above the 
budget request.
    The budget request for this account and the approved 
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:


    Canno Martin Penna, Puerto Rico.--The Corps is directed to 
report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
Congress not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act 
on how this project is, or is not, consistent with current law 
and policy regarding hazardous and toxic materials.
    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 both 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, Additional Topics.--Within the 
funds provided, and in accordance with the amount requested for 
each mission area, the Corps is encouraged to consider 
conducting work on the following topics:
    1. The impact of reduced lock operations on endangered, 
threatened, and game fish species in low-use waterways and 
effective mitigation methods. The Committee has heard concerns 
that a reduction in or elimination of navigational lock 
operations is having a negative impact on the ability of some 
endangered, threatened, and game fish species to migrate 
through waterways, particularly during critical spawning 
periods. The Committee is aware that the Corps has collaborated 
with other federal agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, on two research initiatives that would provide a good 
foundation for this additional research effort.
    2. Urban flood damage reduction and stream restoration in 
arid regions. Previous work in this area included the 
development of tools and technologies for stakeholders, 
including Corps District personnel, other federal agencies, 
state and local governments, and flood control districts. It 
also demonstrated the application of new and innovative 
techniques, models, and methods to arid and semi-arid regions.
    Research and Development, Partnerships.--The budget request 
includes funding for work on controlling invasive aquatic 
species throughout our nations waterways, including the 
Columbia River Basin. The Corps is encouraged to utilize local 
and regional research partners, as appropriate, when conducting 
work to address this serious issue.
    Budgeting for Tribal Areas.--Tribal communities located in 
remote areas that experience severe weather-related conditions 
jeopardizing public safety and health face a significant 
disadvantage under the Corps' utilization of benefit-cost 
ratios in its budgeting process. The Committee encourages the 
Corps to examine ways that federal trust and treaty obligations 
and the need to protect public safety and health in severe 
weather situations could be better incorporated into 
determining budget priorities.

                              CONSTRUCTION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................    $1,639,489,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................     1,172,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................     1,631,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        -8,489,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................      +459,000,000
 

    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 
$1,631,000,000, $8,489,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$459,000,000 above the budget request.
    The budget request for this account and the approved 
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:


    Success Dam, California.--The Committee notes that in 2003 
a project was initiated to increase the reservoir capacity, 
primarily for flood control but also for irrigation water 
storage. The project has been on hold for more than a decade 
due to seismic and seepage concerns, which have now been 
addressed. The drought in California continues to demonstrate 
the importance of and need for expanding water storage capacity 
to capture water during wet years for use in dry years. The 
non-federal sponsors remain very interested in continuing 
implementation of the project. The Committee urges the Corps to 
move expeditiously to resolve remaining hydrologic concerns and 
to update, as necessary, documents related to the project to 
increase reservoir capacity so that the project can finally be 
completed.
    South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Florida.--The 
Committee is aware that the Corps currently is engaging a 
public process to update the Integrated Delivery System (IDS). 
The Committee encourages the Corps to include the Big Cypress-
L-28 Interceptor Modifications Project into the updated IDS.
    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 giving priority to 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;
    (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; and
    (9) for environmental infrastructure, projects with the 
greater economic impact, projects in rural communities, and 
projects in counties or parishes with high poverty rates.
    The executive branch retains complete discretion over 
methodology of the ratings system(s) and project-specific 
allocation decisions within the additional funds provided.
    The Committee is aware that the Corps is developing a 
report describing a 20-year program for making capital 
investments on the inland and intracoastal waterways, pursuant 
to section 2002(d) of the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014. This report is due to be 
submitted to Congress in June 2015. The Committee requires an 
opportunity to review any new report prior to the Corps 
incorporating any part of the report into funding decisions. 
Therefore, when allocating the fiscal year 2016 additional 
funding provided in this account for Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund Projects, the Corps shall not use the report being 
developed pursuant to WRRDA. The Corps shall continue to use, 
as appropriate, the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) 
Capital Projects Business Model, Final Report published on 
April 13, 2010, as the applicable 20-year plan.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Funding is provided for 
watercraft inspection stations, as authorized by section 1039 
of WRRDA 2014.
    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 $23,750,000, an increase of $20,250,000 above the budget 
request, which proposed funding for only four 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 previous fiscal years, 
except that the Chief shall no longer be required to submit 
annual reports on the backlog of projects.
    Continuing Authorities Program, Extraordinary 
Circumstances.--The Committee urges the Assistant Secretary of 
the Army (Civil Works) to review past projects with 
extraordinary circumstances to determine whether exceptions to 
policy are reasonable and advisable, including when 
implementing section 1030 of the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act of 2014.

                   MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $302,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       225,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       275,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       -27,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       +50,000,000
 

    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 $275,000,000, 
$27,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000 above the 
budget request.
    The budget request for this account and the approved 
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:


    Lower Mississippi River Main Stem.--The budget request 
proposes to consolidate several activities across multiple 
states into one line item. The Committee does not support this 
change and instead continues to fund these activities as 
separate line items.
    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.
    Mississippi River Commission.--No funding is provided for 
this new line item. The Corps is directed to continue funding 
the costs of the commission from within the funds provided for 
activities within the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
project.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................    $2,908,511,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................     2,710,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................     3,058,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................      +149,489,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................      +348,000,000
 

    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 
$3,058,000,000, $149,489,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$348,000,000 above the budget request.
    The budget request for this account and the approved 
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:


    Emerging Harbor Projects.--The recommendation includes 
funding for individual projects defined as emerging harbor 
projects (in section 210(f)(2) of the Water Resources 
Development Act (WRDA) of 1986) that exceeds the funding levels 
envisioned in section 210(c)(3) and 210(d)(1)(ii) of WRDA 1986.
    Great Lakes Navigation System.--The recommendation includes 
funding for individual projects within this System that exceeds 
the funding level envisioned in section 210(d)(1)(B)(ii) of 
WRDA 1986.
    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; and
          --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 notes that the budget request for this 
category of projects has increased over the past few years and 
urges the Corps to continue this effort to provide a reasonable 
and equitable allocation under this account.
    Water Operations Technical Support (WOTS).--Funding in 
addition to the budget request is included to continue research 
into atmospheric rivers first funded in fiscal year 2015.
    Dredged Material Disposal.--The Corps is directed to review 
its policies regarding dredged material disposal to determine 
whether these policies continue to be the most appropriate 
given changing economic and environmental realities. The review 
shall include, at a minimum, policy limitations in the study 
phase, including limitations on analyzing confined disposal 
facilities not yet in operation, even if use of those 
facilities would save the Federal government money over the 
long term; the sequencing of dredged material disposal sites 
and individual project efforts; cost share policies, including 
the roles and responsibilities relative to non-Federal 
sponsors; changing environmental considerations, including any 
challenges to the Federal standard for in-water disposal; and 
long-term capacity concerns, including any increases due to 
anticipated harbor improvements. In conducting this review, the 
Corps shall solicit and incorporate the views of interested 
stakeholders and other parties independent of the 
Administration. The Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than nine 
months after the enactment of this Act a report describing the 
results of this review, including detailed recommendations for 
any changes to Federal dredged material disposal policies 
necessary to responsibly address the maintenance of Federal 
navigation channels.
    Ririe Reservoir, Idaho.--The Committee appreciates the 
cooperation to date of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 
Reclamation to allow limited increases in the amount of water 
carried over through the winter flood season without increasing 
flood risk. Water users are interested in additional winter 
water storage, however, but the potential paths forward are not 
clear. The Corps and Reclamation are directed to work together 
to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
Congress not later than 21 days after the enactment of this Act 
a single report describing options the water users could pursue 
for additional water carryover. The report should detail for 
each option the roles and responsibilities of each federal 
agency as well as the water users, including funding 
requirements, process challenges to be addressed, an 
approximate schedule through implementation, any policy or 
statutory changes necessary, and other relevant information the 
water users would need to make an informed decision on whether 
and how they might wish to proceed.
    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.
    Navigation safety and efficiency.--Modifications to deep 
draft high commercial use channels, including bends and 
entrances, are sometimes necessary to ensure safety of 
navigation and efficient operations. The Corps is strongly 
encouraged to use existing authorities, such as 33 U.S.C. 562, 
or to make recommendations for appropriate new or modified 
authorizations to address such safety and efficiency issues in 
a timely manner.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       205,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       200,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................        -5,000,000
 

    This appropriation provides funds to administer laws 
pertaining to the regulation of activities affecting U.S. 
waters, including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and 
Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act, and the 
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. 
Appropriated funds are used to review and process permit 
applications, ensure compliance on permitted sites, protect 
important aquatic resources, and support watershed planning 
efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation with 
states and local communities.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000, 
the same as fiscal year 2015 and $5,000,000 below the budget 
request. The funding increase proposed in the budget request is 
described as necessary to support Clean Water Act rulemaking 
activities and rule implementation related to proposed 
revisions to the definition of waters of the United States. 
Since the Committee includes legislative language prohibiting 
the Corps from carrying out these activities, the associated 
funding increase is unnecessary. The funding provided is 
therefore sufficient to maintain, at a minimum, staffing needs 
and scientific and technological support for traditional 
program activities such as processing permit applications and 
conducting the work necessary to reissue the Nationwide permits 
in 2017.
    In fiscal year 2014 and again in fiscal year 2015, the 
Committee raised a concern with the Corps' changed 
interpretation of Clean Water Act requirements related to the 
identification of a specified end-user. Congress rejected the 
new interpretation. Unfortunately, the Committee continues to 
hear concerns on this issue. The Committee again directs the 
Corps to ensure that all field offices adhere in all instances 
to the interpretations directed by the Congress. The previous 
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.

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $101,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       104,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       104,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +2,500,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) from the Department of Energy 
to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In appropriating 
FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee intended 
to transfer only the responsibility for administration and 
execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP sites where the 
Department had not completed cleanup. The Committee did not 
transfer to the Corps ownership of and accountability for real 
property interests, which remain with the Department. The 
Committee expects the Department to continue to provide its 
institutional knowledge and expertise to ensure the success of 
this program and to serve the nation and the affected 
communities.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $104,000,000, 
$2,500,000 above fiscal year 2015 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, 2015...................................       $28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        34,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        34,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +6,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 $34,000,000 for this account, 
$6,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget 
request.

                                EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $178,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       180,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       180,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +2,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 $180,000,000, 
$2,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget 
request.
    The Committee reiterates direction provided in fiscal year 
2015 regarding implementation of the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014.
    Public-Private Partnership Program.--The Committee is aware 
of the strong support of many Members of the House of 
Representatives for the public-private partnership (P3) program 
authorized in section 5014 of WRRDA 2014. As part of its Civil 
Works Transformation initiative, the Corps has been discussing 
for several years the idea of public-private partnerships as a 
project delivery tool to help sustain the performance of 
existing infrastructure and construct new infrastructure more 
quickly. Water resource projects are different from more 
traditional P3 projects in key ways, however, and these issues 
need to be addressed before a P3 program could be viable. The 
Corps is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations 
of both Houses of Congress not later than 60 days after the 
enactment of this Act a report detailing any work to date on 
developing public-private partnerships generally and on 
implementing section 5014 specifically (including a schedule 
for issuing implementation guidance). The report also shall 
include a list of any demonstration projects being evaluated 
and a detailed description of the goals, advances, and 
remaining challenges for each such demonstration project.
    Flood Damage Reduction Projects on Federal Lands.--The 
Committee is aware that some locally owned and operated flood 
damage reduction projects are located, at least in part, on 
federal land. One such project is the R-616 levee, a portion of 
which is physically located on Offutt Air Force Base. Local 
entities can find it challenging to try to determine what 
assistance might be available in situations involving multiple 
federal agencies with multiple programs and authorities, 
especially when property is owned by multiple entities. To help 
minimize this challenge, the Corps is directed to submit to the 
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not 
later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act a report 
describing existing programs, authorities, and funding options 
available to assist local sponsors with existing flood damage 
reduction projects located at least in part on federal land. 
The report shall include overall programmatic findings, as well 
as findings specific to the R-616 project. The Corps shall work 
with the other relevant federal agencies to describe available 
options specific to the R-616 project.

     OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................        $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................         5,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................         4,750,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +1,750,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................          -250,000
 

    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 $4,750,000, 
$1,750,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $250,000 below the budget 
request.
    In the explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year 
2015 Act, the Committee detailed serious concerns about the 
breakdown in traditional roles and responsibilities between the 
White House, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
for Civil Works (ASA(CW)), and the Corps headquarters. 
Unfortunately, to date, the Committee has not noticed 
significant improvements nor heard from the ASA(CW) regarding 
steps taken to address the issues raised. The Committee eagerly 
awaits that information.
    The recommendation includes legislative language 
restricting the availability of 75 percent of the funding 
provided in this account until such time as at least 95 percent 
of the additional funding provided in each account has been 
allocated to specific programs, projects, or activities. As of 
the writing of this report--almost three months after the 
initial work plan submission--a significant portion of the 
additional funding provided in fiscal year 2015 remains 
unallocated, including 39 percent of the Investigations funding 
and 22 percent of the Construction funding. The Administration 
has not shown any sense of urgency to allocate this remaining 
funding even after repeated inquiries from this Committee. The 
legislative provision is intended to impress upon the 
Administration the importance the Committee places on the 
prudent and expeditious allocation of additional funding 
provided in fiscal year 2016.

             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 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 includes a provision prohibiting funds from being 
used to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction 
under the Clean Water Act.
    The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds 
to require permits for the discharge of dredged or fill 
material for certain agriculture activities. Identical language 
was included in the fiscal year 2015 Act. As articulated in 
report language in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the Committee 
has been concerned that the Corps has changed its 
interpretation of the Clean Water Act to significantly reduce 
the application of the statutory exemptions included in the 
Act. Since the Corps made no improvements to implementation in 
response to the report language, the Committee included 
statutory language in the fiscal year 2015 Act to prohibit the 
Corps from requiring permits for the specified activities 
without exception. Unfortunately the Administration 
misinterpreted that language, as well, and issued 
implementation guidance asserting that the fiscal year 2015 Act 
language simply reinforced current practice. The Corps is 
directed to implement the provision in this bill as it is 
intended--as a complete prohibition on requiring permits for 
the specified activities; the so-called ``recapture provision'' 
shall not apply to these activities.
    The bill contains a provision allowing the possession of 
firearms at water resources development projects under certain 
circumstances.
    The bill includes a provision regarding certain dredged 
material disposal activities.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


                          Central Utah Project


                CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................        $9,874,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................         7,300,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................         9,874,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................        +2,574,000
 

    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 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 the same as fiscal year 2015 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.

                            WESTERN DROUGHT

    Extensive and exceptional drought continues to plague the 
Western United States. The U.S. Drought Monitor for March 31, 
2015, shows that Montana is the only Reclamation state that is 
virtually drought free. All or significant portions of eleven 
Reclamation states are suffering from severe to exceptional 
drought. California has entered a fourth consecutive year of 
drought.
    Drought conditions are difficult to address at the time the 
drought is occurring, but there are some things that can be 
done to stretch available water supplies. The Bureau of 
Reclamation and the Department of the Interior are encouraged 
to use all of the flexibility and tools available to mitigate 
the impacts of this drought.
    The only way to mitigate the effects of future droughts, 
however, is through a strategy of providing a combination of 
additional storage, improved conveyance, and increased 
efficiencies in the uses of water both for agriculture and 
potable purposes. As the West has consistently been the fastest 
growing part of the country, it is incumbent on Reclamation, as 
the leading water purveyor in the West, to lead the way in 
increasing the water that is available from one year to the 
next and to research and develop more efficient uses of the 
water that is available.
    California.--The Committee notes that, with last year's 
passage of California's Proposition 1, the California Water 
Commission is expected to begin in early 2017 allocating 
$2,700,000,000 in funding for the public benefits of water 
storage projects. Reclamation, in consultation with other 
relevant federal agencies, is encouraged to review planned 
activities, including schedules, to ensure that federal actions 
do not needlessly inhibit the ability of local entities to 
compete for these state funds.

      FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Bureau of 
Reclamation totals $1,098,668,000. The Committee recommendation 
totals $1,094,668,000, $35,458,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$4,000,000 below the budget request.
    A table summarizing the fiscal year 2015 enacted 
appropriation, the fiscal year 2016 budget request, and the 
Committee recommendation is provided below:

 
                         (Dollars in thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2015      FY 2016
             Account                 enacted      request     Cmte rec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Related Resources......     $978,131     $805,157     $948,640
Central Valley Project                  56,995       49,528       49,528
 Restoration Fund................
California Bay-Delta Restoration.       37,000       37,000       37,000
Policy and Administration........       58,500       59,500       59,500
Indian Water Rights Settlements..        - - -      112,483        - - -
San Joaquin River Restoration            - - -       35,000        - - -
 Fund............................
                                  --------------------------------------
        Total, Bureau of             1,130,626    1,098,668    1,094,668
         Reclamation.............
Rescission.......................         -500        - - -        - - -
                                  --------------------------------------
        Net Appropriation, Bureau    1,130,126    1,098,668    1,094,668
         of Reclamation..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $978,131,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       805,157,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       948,640,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       -29,491,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................      +143,483,000
 

    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 2016, the Committee recommends 
$948,640,000, $29,491,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$143,483,000 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 $4,000,000 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 five 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, San Luis Unit, California.--The 
Committee is aware that Reclamation and the Western Area Power 
Administration are evaluating the possible construction of a 
transmission line to directly serve the San Luis Unit from the 
Central Valley Project system as an alternative to receiving 
service under the California Independent System Operator's 
(CAISO) Tariff. If this alternative is selected, the agencies 
are directed to work together and with the affected Central 
Valley Project water contractors to ensure the most efficient 
and cost-effective process for implementation.
    Ririe Reservoir, Idaho.--The Committee appreciates the 
cooperation to date of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps 
of Engineers to allow limited increases in the amount of water 
carried over through the winter flood season without increasing 
flood risk. Water users are interested in additional winter 
water storage, however, but the potential paths forward are not 
clear. Reclamation and the Corps are directed to work together 
to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
Congress not later than 21 days after the enactment of this Act 
a single report describing options the water users could pursue 
for additional water carryover. The report should detail for 
each option the roles and responsibilities of each federal 
agency as well as the water users, including funding 
requirements, process challenges to be addressed, an 
approximate schedule through implementation, any policy or 
statutory changes necessary, and other relevant information the 
water users would need to make an informed decision on whether 
and how they might wish to proceed.
    Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.--Reclamation is 
encouraged to continue working with the Tribes and relevant 
Federal agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
the Indian Health Service, and the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to coordinate use of all existing authorities 
and funding sources to finish needed community system upgrades 
and connections as quickly as possible.
    Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Integrated 
Plan, Washington.--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.
    WaterSMART Program, Interagency Partnerships.--The 
Committee notes the work being undertaken by the Bureau of 
Reclamation and United States Department of Agriculture's 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to coordinate the 
water use efficiency assistance authorized under the Secure 
Water Act and the on-farm water conservation assistance 
provided through the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program. This partnership began in 2011 with attention focused 
in California, but has since expanded beyond this area. The 
Committee encourages Reclamation to continue working with the 
NRCS to identify and implement ways within existing authorities 
to extend the benefits of this collaborative effort throughout 
the West.
    WaterSMART Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse 
Projects.--The Committee has heard from numerous stakeholders 
who believe the program's effectiveness could be enhanced 
through expanding the pool of projects eligible to compete for 
funding for planning, design, or construction activities. The 
Committee encourages Reclamation to develop and propose to the 
authorizing committees of both Houses of Congress 
recommendations for improvements, which may include 
programmatic changes and project-specific authorizations.
    Water Supply Authorities.--Reclamation is directed to 
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
Congress not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act a report detailing the authorizations (including specific 
statutory citations) currently available to provide additional 
water supply to drought prone areas; an assessment of 
opportunities to accelerate actions to provide water supply; 
and research and development investments that could expand or 
maximize existing supplies through water quality improvements 
such as addressing Colorado River Salinity or impaired water.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $56,995,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        49,528,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        49,528,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        -7,467,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 2016, the Committee recommends $49,528,000, 
$7,467,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget 
request. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for 
programs and activities according to the Administration's 
request. The Committee notes that the decrease for this account 
in the budget request and recommendation is based on a three-
year rolling average of collections, in accordance with the 
authorizing statute.
    The Committee has heard from Members of the House of 
Representatives and affected stakeholders concerned with the 
effectiveness of the funds expended, as well as progress made 
towards the activities and goals delineated in the Act. The 
Committee notes these concerns have been expressed repeatedly 
even though Reclamation makes an annual report available to the 
public. The Committee welcomes a discussion on ways to make 
Reclamation's explanation of its work under this program more 
accessible and meaningful for all interested stakeholders.
    Anadromous Fish Screen Program.--The Committee notes the 
progress being made to screen the high priority unscreened 
diversions on the Sacramento River under the Bureau of 
Reclamation's Anadromous Fish Screen Program. The Committee 
encourages Reclamation to continue its focus on screening of 
the remaining high priority diversions from within funds made 
available under the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund in 
future budget requests.

                    CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $37,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        37,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        37,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 2016, the Committee recommends $37,000,000, 
the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request.
    The Committee notes that with the passage last year of 
California's Proposition 1, the California Water Commission is 
expected to begin in early 2017 allocating $2,700,000,000 for 
the public benefits of water storage projects. To ensure that 
the CALFED water supply projects are able to compete for the 
available State funding, the bill includes a general provision 
directing the Bureau of Reclamation to complete each of these 
feasibility studies by a specific date and to submit the 
completed studies to the appromiate committees of both houses 
of Congress. The language also requires periodic progress 
reports.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $58,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        59,500,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        59,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +1,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 2016, the Committee recommends 
$59,500,000, $1,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as 
the budget request.
    The recommendation includes legislative language 
restricting the availability of 75 percent of this funding 
until such time as Reclamation complies with congressional and 
statutory direction related to the Technical Memorandum on 
buried metallic water pipe and the associated pipeline 
reliability study.
    With the notable exception of the issue of buried metallic 
water pipe, Reclamation's responsiveness to congressional 
direction and Committee information requests has improved 
significantly since last year. The Committee appreciates 
Reclamation's efforts.

                        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.
    The bill includes a provision regarding completion of 
certain feasibility studies.

                    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 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 Federal Salaries 
and Expenses), Defense Environmental Cleanup, Defense Uranium 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning, Other Defense 
Activities, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Department of Energy has requested a total budget of 
$30,527,136,000, as estimated by the Congressional Budget 
Office, in fiscal year 2016 to fund programs in its four 
primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, and 
national security. The Department of Energy budget request is 
$2,610,339,000 above fiscal year 2015.
    The Committee's recommendation 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 existing forms of energy production and to develop 
new and innovative forms of energy for the nation's long-term 
energy independence and prosperity.

                        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 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 AND MANAGEMENT

    The Department is still not in full compliance with its 
statutory requirement to submit to Congress, at the time that 
the President's budget request is submitted, a future-years 
energy program that covers the fiscal year of the budget 
submission and the four succeeding years, as directed in the 
fiscal year 2012 Act. Development and submission of a five-year 
budget is an important step in enhancing the Department's 
ability to conduct long-term planning and to understand issues 
that might impact the affordability of certain proposals. The 
Department is directed to submit not later than 90 days after 
the enactment of this Act to the Committees on Appropriations 
of both Houses of Congress a report on a plan to become fully 
compliant with this requirement.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about the 
Department's management of its prior-year carryover funds and 
the buildup of excessive prior-year balances that are greater 
than five years old. Retaining these old balances places a 
cumbersome administrative burden on DOE programs and makes the 
Department's financial management processes inefficient and 
unnecessarily complex. Last year, the Committee directed the 
Department to consider all balances greater than five years old 
effectively expired and to submit all remaining unexpended 
balances greater than five years old as an offset to its annual 
budget request. The Department proposed a limited amount of 
funding in certain accounts to offset the fiscal year 2016 
budget request, but did not submit any requests to retain 
specific prior-year funds. The Committee will monitor the 
monthly financial reports provided by the Department to ensure 
that these funds are eliminated during budget execution. The 
Committee will consider any additional amounts that have not 
been spent by the end of fiscal year 2015 to be available for 
offset, unless a specific request is received to retain those 
balances. The Committee will continue to consider all 
Department of Energy programs under a five year period of 
availability in future years.
    The Committee is also concerned that the Department is 
failing in its responsibility to ensure that DOE contracts with 
incurred costs valued at billions of dollars per year are 
audited in a timely manner. The DOE Inspector General recently 
investigated cost audit coverage of non-maintenance and 
operating contracts and found that the current cost audit 
coverage was insufficient because the Department primarily 
utilizes the Defense Contract Audit Agency and that agency has 
been unable to perform many of its audits on a timely basis. 
The Department is directed to submit not later than 120 days 
after the enactment of this Act to the Committees on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a plan to improve 
cost audit coverage, with clear milestones and performance 
measures.
    Alleviation of Poverty. --The Secretary of Energy is 
directed to provide not later than 120 days after the enactment 
of this Act a report detailing all domestic and international 
projects and programs within its jurisdiction that contribute 
to the alleviation of poverty.

           MANAGEMENT OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE

    Despite the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the 
Administration's refusal to finish the Yucca Mountain license 
application was illegal, the Administration continues to 
disregard current law regarding Yucca Mountain. These actions 
to stop the development of the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste 
Repository have delayed the federal government from fulfilling 
the legal requirement to take responsibility for civilian spent 
nuclear fuel, increasing the financial penalties taxpayers must 
bear. The remaining liability is currently estimated to be 
$22,600,000,000. Under current law, any damages or settlements 
in this litigation will be paid out of the Judgment Fund. 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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed the 
Safety Evaluation Report for the project finding no substantive 
reasons that the Yucca Mountain Site cannot be completed. In 
Volume 2 which covers safety before permanent closure, the NRC 
concludes that with reasonable assurance, subject to proposed 
conditions, the Department's application meets the NRC 
regulatory requirements. The NRC has also begun preparing a 
supplement to the Department's environmental impact statement 
(EIS) on the proposed geologic repository for spent nuclear 
fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in 
Nevada. Previously, the NRC staff found the EIS prepared by the 
Department did not adequately address all of the repository-
related effects on groundwater, or from surface discharges of 
groundwater. In 2013, the Commission asked the Department to 
prepare a supplement. Rather than comply with the Court Order, 
the Department updated its analysis of potential groundwater 
impacts after closure of a repository at the site, and in 
February 2015 the Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare 
the supplement. The NRC staff will use the Department's 
analysis in preparing the supplement, which is expected to be 
completed in the Spring of 2016.
    Nevertheless, the Administration's fiscal year 2016 budget 
request once again attempts to fund unauthorized alternatives 
for used nuclear fuel disposition instead of moving forward 
with Yucca Mountain. It 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 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.
    To address the Administration's failure to execute current 
law, the recommendation provides $150,000,000 within Nuclear 
Waste Disposal to support the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste 
Geologic Repository and $25,000,000 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 remains concerned with the Department's 
continual proposals to establish new research centers reliant 
on out-year funding commitments subject to future 
appropriations. In fiscal year 2016, the Department proposed 
funding two new Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation 
Institutes, in addition to providing continued funding for the 
existing four Institutes funded in prior years. In last year's 
Act, two Energy Innovation Hubs were renewed in for another 
five-year term while funds were provided to support continued 
operations at the other two existing Hubs. Furthermore, the 
Department is requesting continued funding for the BioEnergy 
Research Centers and additional funds for the Energy Frontier 
Research Centers. The funding of institutes constitutes a 
growing portion of the Department's budget and represents a 
significant out-year investment.
    While the fiscal year 2016 request provided more detail 
than before for the establishment of new research centers, the 
Committee expects the Department to provide a more detailed 
analysis in future requests. The Committee continues to support 
the ongoing review of all existing research centers and urges 
the Department to take a critical look at its portfolio to 
determine where improvements can be made in its existing 
inventory of research centers.
    The Committee reiterates its previous direction for the 
Department to explicitly include in future budget 
justifications for all centers, hubs, institutes, facilities, 
and any other persistent, location-based grantees; their 
current and proposed funding levels; expected out-year 
commitments; and details on their programmatic and technical 
goals.

                        COMMONLY RECYCLED PAPER

    The Department shall not expend funds for projects that 
knowingly use as a feedstock commonly recycled paper that is 
segregated from municipal solid waste or collected as part of a 
collection system that commingles commonly recycled paper with 
other solid waste at any point from the time of collection 
through materials recovery.

                    OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS

    The Committee acknowledges the Department's efforts to 
expand the commercial impact of its research activities in 
creating the Office of Technology Transitions. As one of the 
largest providers of basic and applied research in the nation, 
the Department is at the forefront of innovation. The 
scientific and technical capabilities of the Department's 
research centers and the National Laboratories have been an 
essential component in many technological breakthroughs. The 
Committee supports the continued efforts of the Department in 
assisting the transfer of federally funded research from the 
laboratory to the commercial sector. However, the Committee 
expects that these technology transfer efforts will receive 
equal treatment across each of the Department's research 
activities. In carrying out the activities of the Office of 
Technology Transitions, the Department is directed to use 
funding taken from individual applied research offices on 
projects within the purview of that same applied research 
office. The Committee directs the Department to submit to the 
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not 
later than 180 days after enactment of this Act a report on the 
activities of the Office of Technology Transitions and provide 
a table tracking the usage of the Energy Technology 
Commercialization Fund to specific technology transfer and 
partnership activities.

                         EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

    The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and 
scholarship programs in fiscal year 2016 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 2016 must be 
detailed in the fiscal year 2016 budget justifications. This 
direction shall be followed in future fiscal years unless 
contradicted by the Committee.

                 REPROGRAMMING AND TRANSFER GUIDELINES

    The Committee requires the Department to inform the 
Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution 
and funding is required during the fiscal year. 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.
    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 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 both Houses of Congress that it is in the 
nation's security interest to do so. The Department shall not 
deviate from the levels for activities specified in the report 
which are below the level of the detail table, except through 
the regular notification procedures of the Committee. No funds 
may be added to programs for which funding has been denied. Any 
reallocation of new or prior-year budget authority or prior-
year de-obligations, or any request to implement a 
reorganization which includes moving previous appropriations 
between appropriations accounts must be submitted to the 
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress in 
writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the 
Committees.
    Transfers.--As in fiscal year 2015, funding actions into or 
out of accounts funded by this Act may only be made by transfer 
authorities provided by this or other Appropriations Acts.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy 
programs in fiscal year 2016 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, 2015...................................    $1,923,935,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................     2,722,987,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................     1,657,774,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................      -266,161,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................    -1,065,213,000
 

    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 $1,657,774,000 for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $266,161,000 below fiscal year 
2015 and $1,065,213,000 below the budget request.
    For the purposes of allocating funding, the Committee 
encourages the Department to examine the feasibility of ultra 
conductive 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.
    The Department is directed to end the practice of taking a 
small fraction of annual funding within EERE technology offices 
to fund incubator programs.

                       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 $514,783,000 for Sustainable 
Transportation, $87,217,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$278,217,000 below the budget request.
    Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$255,400,000 for Vehicle Technologies, $24,600,000 below fiscal 
year 2015 and $188,600,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee acknowledges the success of the SuperTruck I program 
in improving freight and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency. Within 
available funds, the recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the 
SuperTruck II program to further improve the efficiency of 
heavy-duty class 8 long- and regional-haul vehicles through 
multi-year awards subject to future availability of funds. The 
Department is directed to provide maximum funding flexibility 
needed to achieve the program's objectives. Additionally, the 
Department should consider industry-wide impacts when making 
these awards.
    The recommendation provides $95,000,000 for Batteries and 
Electric Drive Technology, of which $40,800,000 is for advanced 
battery development, including up to $6,000,000 to continue 
national laboratory performance testing and life cycle 
diagnostic assessment activities that validate and verify 
advanced battery performance.
    The recommendation provides $25,900,000 for Outreach and 
Development, of which $24,000,000 is for the Clean Cities 
program. No funding is provided for Advanced Vehicle 
Competitions or the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Community Partner 
projects. The Committee urges the Department to support 
training and outreach, including to small repair shops, related 
to diesel to natural gas retrofits.
    For other subprograms within Vehicle Technologies, the 
recommendation provides $34,500,000 for Vehicle and Systems 
Simulation and Testing; $47,000,000 for Advanced Combustion 
Engines; $32,500,000 for Materials Technology; and $22,500,000 
for Fuels Technology.
    The Committee encourages Vehicle Technologies to further 
address the need to overcome the barriers to widespread 
adoption of lightweight designs that include mixed materials 
such as magnesium alloys, aluminum alloys, high-strength 
steels, and fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Applied 
research is needed to develop coatings, adhesives, high-
strength fiber glass, and other advanced materials to 
effectively join mixed materials, prevent corrosion, reduce 
costs, and address consumer requirements such as noise 
mitigation and appearance.
    The Committee also encourages the Department to work with 
the natural gas vehicle industry to identify needs and develop 
solutions for additional engines and emissions control 
technologies in order to obtain the emission advantages when 
using natural gas in high efficiency engines.
    Bioenergy Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$165,300,000 for Bioenergy Technologies, $59,700,000 below 
fiscal year 2015 and $80,700,000 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; 
$75,500,000 for Conversion Technologies; $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 Cross-Cutting Sustainability.
    The Committee directs the Department to develop a 
comprehensive list of existing demonstration and pilot-scale 
multi-user facilities for bio-based products, chemicals, and 
intermediates, including synthesis gas, hydrogen, and methane, 
assess the gaps and needs of such inventory, and report to the 
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not 
later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act.
    Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.--The Committee 
recommends $94,083,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies, 
$2,917,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $8,917,000 below the 
budget request.
    Within available funds, the recommendation includes 
$7,000,000 for Technology Validation, of which $5,000,000 is to 
continue 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.
    The Committee recognizes the achievements of the Fuel Cell 
Technologies program, and expresses its continued support for 
fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle, 
motive and portable power applications. Through the Market 
Transformation program, the Department should engage in cost-
shared deployments to encourage expanding state-related 
activities including, but not limited to: tri-generation 
facilities, ground support equipment for aviation and maritime 
ports, hybrid-vehicle range extenders, energy storage projects 
to support base load renewable energy projects, and microgrid 
deployments to improve resiliency. Additionally, the Department 
should work with states to overcome challenges associated with 
deployment of 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 $326,750,000 for Renewable Energy, 
$129,250,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $318,450,000 below the 
budget request.
    Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $151,600,000 for 
Solar Energy, $81,400,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$185,100,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $32,000,000 for Concentrating Solar 
Power; $33,000,000 for Photovoltaic Research and Development; 
$39,500,000 for Systems Integration; and $23,000,000 for 
Innovations in Manufacturing Competitiveness, of which no 
funding is included for the SUNPATH III program.
    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.
    Wind Energy.--The Committee recommends $90,450,000 for Wind 
Energy, $16,550,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $55,050,000 
below the budget request. Within available funds, the 
recommendation provides $37,000,000 for the Offshore Wind 
Advanced Technology Demonstration Project; $2,000,000 to 
continue research and development in support of the offshore 
demonstration project; $10,000,000 for the Mitigate Market 
Barriers program, of which $4,500,000 is for the research 
initiative focused on Eagle Impact Mitigation Technologies; and 
$1,000,000 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 $38,700,000 for 
Water Power, $22,300,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $28,300,000 
below the budget request. Within available funds, the 
recommendation provides $21,280,000 for marine and hydrokinetic 
technologies and $16,720,000 for conventional hydropower, of 
which $3,960,000 is for the purposes of Section 242 of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    The Committee recognizes the Department's funding of marine 
hydrokinetic power research and understands the Department's 
basis for past allocation of funding between the various 
sources of marine hydrokinetic power. The Committee also 
understands that locations for harnessing various forms of 
marine hydrokinetic power are located closer to major 
population centers, which could utilize the power created by 
marine hydrokinetic power technologies. The Committee directs 
the Department to allocate the current fiscal year funding to 
marine hydrokinetic power based on the Department's 
comprehensive resource assessments and industry and stakeholder 
input, allowing for the further development of marine 
hydrokinetic power technologies.
    Geothermal Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$46,000,000 for Geothermal Technologies, $9,000,000 below 
fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000 below the budget request. 
Within available funds, the recommendation provides $27,000,000 
for Enhanced Geothermal Systems, of which $21,000,000 is for 
ongoing 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 $617,562,000 for Energy 
Efficiency, $24,438,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $412,025,000 
below the budget request.
    Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends 
$205,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing, $5,000,000 above 
fiscal year 2015 and $199,000,000 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 $79,000,000 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 
$106,500,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Research and 
Development Facilities, of which $25,000,000 is for the fifth 
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 $70,000,000 is for five 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 recommendation supports the establishment of one new 
CEMI Institute in fiscal year 2016, in addition to the four 
established using fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015 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 recognizes the significant outcomes from 
partnering with industry to create American jobs and strengthen 
the U.S. manufacturing base and encourages an applied research 
funding opportunity announcement as a part of the Process 
intensification applied research portfolio which includes 
innovative approaches to low-thermal budget process heating and 
thermally activated chemical reactions to reduce industrial 
energy intensity. Suitable approaches might include novel 
applications of electromagnetic energy, such as microwave or 
radio frequency, and novel materials that require less energy 
to heat or chemically react.
    The Committee also recognizes the importance of the textile 
sector and believes that federal support for advanced textile 
research is essential to maintaining the competitiveness of the 
domestic textile and apparel industry. The Committee believes 
that advanced textile research can develop more sustainable 
manufacturing processes and technologies that will benefit 
producers, foster the reshoring of textile jobs to the United 
States, and reduce the global environmental impact of textile 
manufacturing. The Committee therefore encourages the 
Department to consider the need for competitively-funded 
advanced textile manufacturing process research.
    The Committee is aware that the U.S. represents the largest 
market for lithium metal, a near critical material with 
national security and advanced manufacturing applications. 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. Assuring domestic production of lithium metal 
is critical to many investments made across the Department. The 
Committee directs the Department to analyze the impact federal 
investment may have in strengthening the availability and usage 
of lithium, including low-sodium lithium metal, and issue not 
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act a report on 
the Department's capabilities to increase U.S. domestic supply.
    Building Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$150,362,000 for Building Technologies, $21,638,000 below 
fiscal year 2015 and $113,638,000 below the budget request.
    Within available funds, 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 
$21,000,000 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; $41,000,000 for 
Equipment and Buildings Standards; and $23,000,000 for 
Residential Buildings Integration.
    Commercial buildings account for 19 percent of the energy 
consumed in the United States. In order to improve energy 
efficiency within this important market, a national program to 
improve the energy efficiency of small- and medium-sized 
commercial buildings is needed. Within available funds, up to 
$10,000,000 is to support a competitive funding opportunity for 
proposals that would achieve deeper energy efficiency 
improvements in small- and medium-sized commercial buildings.
    The Committee recognizes that adaptive, automated, and 
learning building technologies offer new opportunities for 
energy savings in residential and commercial buildings. The 
Committee encourages the Department to support collaborative 
research with industry and demonstration of the energy savings 
potential of adaptive connected equipment and responsive 
building technologies.
    Consistent with current policy, of the funds made available 
for Building Technologies, 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.
    Furthermore, the Committee encourages the Department to 
ensure consideration of states and localities' priorities when 
developing a program for the Building Energy Codes Program.
    The Committee directs the Department to work with its 
partner agencies, industry, and relevant university programs to 
initiate not later than eight months after the enactment of 
this Act a study of the potential benefits of ``smart home'' 
electronics. The study should include, but not be limited to: 
consumer control of energy sources in the home from remote 
locations outside the home, compatible appliance availability, 
control of compatible appliances from remote locations outside 
the home, energy demand and load data capture and reporting, 
automation of energy monitoring and reduced consumption, and 
cost-effective technologies that could further save consumers 
money and reduce the energy consumption in homes, and an 
evaluation of research and development approaches for 
increasing energy efficiency of home energy consumption.
    Additionally, the Committee encourages the Department to 
continue to consider energy savings from increased energy 
efficiency of consumer electronics.
    Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee 
recommends $18,800,000 for the Federal Energy Management 
Program, $8,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $24,288,000 
below the budget request.
    Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs.--The 
Committee recommends $243,400,000 for Weatherization and 
Intergovernmental Programs, $400,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$75,099,000 below the budget request.
    The recommendation provides $190,000,000 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 competitive awards within the 
Weatherization Assistance Program to develop and test financing 
models to support energy efficiency retrofits.
    The Secretary shall report not later than 90 days after the 
enactment of this Act on the use of solar and other renewable 
energy measures and systems in the Weatherization Assistance 
Program and include an analysis of any requirements of law or 
regulation or any policies of the Department which result in 
making the installation of solar energy systems less likely 
than other measures of comparable cost and benefit that are 
installed by the program.
    Social Cost of Carbon.--The Department should not 
promulgate any regulations in fiscal year 2016 using the May 
2013 estimates for the social cost of carbon until a new 
working group is convened. The working group should include the 
relevant agencies and affected stakeholders, re-examine the 
social cost of carbon using the best available science, and 
revise the estimates using an accurate discount rate and 
domestic estimate in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and 
OMB Circular A-4. To increase transparency, the working group 
should solicit public comment prior to finalizing any updates.

                           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, $19,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $37,200,000 
below the budget request.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $150,000,000 
for Program Direction, $10,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$15,330,000 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.
    Use of Prior-Year Balances.--The recommendation includes 
the use of $19,321,000 in prior-year balances, to be taken from 
Solar Energy Program Direction.

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $147,306,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       270,100,000
Recommended, 2015.....................................       187,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +40,194,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       -82,600,000
 

    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 $187,500,000 for Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability, $40,194,000 above fiscal year 
2015 and $82,600,000 below the budget request.
    Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and 
Development.--The Committee recommends $140,500,000 for 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and 
Development, $32,800,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $12,500,000 
below the budget request. Within available funds, the 
recommendation provides $31,000,000 for Clean Energy 
Transmission and Reliability, of which $5,000,000 is for the 
Energy Systems Predictive Capability activity; $30,000,000 for 
Smart Grid; $15,000,000 for Energy Storage; and $54,500,000 for 
cyber security for energy delivery systems, of which $5,000,000 
is to continue development of the industry-scale electric grid 
test bed; and $10,000,000 for Transformer Resilience and 
Advanced Components.
    The Committee recognizes that our nation's highly 
integrated electrical grid is a target of cyber-attacks, and it 
is imperative that we fully understand the complexity of the 
interdependencies between information technology, operational 
technology, and physical security. In this environment, the 
Department's programs to strengthen the security and resilience 
of the nation's electricity grid against cyber, physical, and 
human risks must be closely coordinated, and the agency must 
work with energy sector owners and operators to address these 
risks and develop comprehensive mitigation strategies. The 
Committee directs the Department to provide a report, not later 
than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, with the 
following: (1) the Department's plans to better understand and 
respond to the full-range of energy sector threats through 
enhanced engagement with private sector owners and operators of 
such infrastructure; (2) recommendations to provide 
consideration to owners of energy delivery systems for services 
and hardware incurred in the act of information sharing, 
analyzing, or exercising with any DOE agency or instrument 
regarding energy sector systems protection as referenced in 
this paragraph; and (3) an assessment of the need for a revised 
organizational structure to better align the agency's energy 
sector systems protection activities across cyber, physical, 
and human risks, including those protecting government 
facilities and networks.
    Within Smart Grid Research and Development, the Committee 
encourages the Department to accelerate the deployment of 
community-scale power microgrids that improve local energy 
reliability and resilience through technologies such as on-site 
generation and storage. This includes investments in system 
enhancements necessary to facilitate the integration of new 
technologies. The potential grid enhancements could include 
developing microgrid systems that can be customized to connect 
distributed generation and enhance reliability and power 
quality depending on customer needs.
    The Committee supports the Department's efforts to improve 
electricity reliability and grid integration initiatives. 
Accordingly, the Committee encourages the Department to 
establish one or more grid integration demonstration modules. 
These projects should include a utility that has experienced 
some reliability problems in the past and serves a large 
population; industrial and academic partners with appropriate 
engineering capabilities in grid and energy storage 
technologies in an area that could incorporate opportunities to 
include solar and wind elements; and national laboratories 
involved in the grid integration consortium.
    The Committee continues to support the Department's 
research activities to ensure transmission reliability. Recent 
weather-related events, however, have reinforced the need for 
integration of local, regional, and national weather into 
transmission reliability and resiliency modeling and simulation 
activities to support the utility industry and emergency 
response. The Committee encourages the Department to partner 
with universities, national laboratories, and industry when 
issuing competitively-awarded research and development 
activities to ensure regional weather and related environmental 
variables are accounted for in advanced grid modeling research.
    The Committee recognizes the Department's efforts in 
advancing the state of power management in the grid using 
advanced semiconductor technology. This technology has the 
potential for increasing transmission efficiency and grid 
reliability, and reducing the need for construction of 
additional power lines. The Committee encourages the Department 
to continue this support by investing in additional research 
and development of cost competitive, lateral, normally-off 
gallium nitride on silicon based power electronic devices with 
increased voltage and current handling capability appropriate 
for electric grid applications. This will result in lower power 
costs to the consumer and higher reliability of the 
transmission and distribution infrastructure.
    Within available funds for Energy Storage, the Committee 
encourages the Department to support utility-sponsored and 
operated energy storage test facilities that are capable of 
performance-driven data in a utility environment.
    Furthermore, the Committee understands that through using 
support of the electric grid, we can achieve capabilities 
unmatched by any other approach for the storage, transmission, 
and distribution offered by the natural gas grid. In 
recognition of this need, the Committee encourages the Energy 
Storage program to solicit a demonstration of utility-scale 
energy storage, utilizing existing pipeline infrastructure to 
store renewable natural gas.
    The Committee recognizes that further investment is needed 
to maintain and expand power and energy education programs, and 
secure industry partnerships to facilitate the development of a 
highly skilled next-generation technical and engineering 
workforce for the electric power sector. Therefore, the 
Committee encourages the Department to prioritize its research 
and development investments so that they engage and further 
develop the capabilities of university undergraduate and 
graduate programs in power and energy.
    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. In last year's House Report, the Committee 
directed the Department to contract with an appropriate 
organization to conduct a national level comprehensive study on 
the future resiliency and reliability of the nation's electric 
power transmission and distribution system. The Committee looks 
forward to the results of this ongoing study.
    Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration (ISER).--The 
Committee recommends $14,000,000 for Infrastructure Security 
and Energy Restoration, $8,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
the same as the budget request. The Department was directed to 
use $8,000,000 in 2015 for the Operational Energy and 
Resilience program to support the construction of the 
Operations Center within the Department's Headquarters. It is 
the Committee's understanding that the Department has chosen 
not to build out this Operations Center. Not later than 30 days 
after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall report on 
plans for meeting the requirement for a functional Operations 
Center that meets the needs articulated by the Department in 
last year's budget request.
    The Committee directs the Department of Energy to submit 
not later than 6 months after the enactment of this Act a 
report on the vulnerability of the grid to an electromagnetic 
pulse event and the potential impact on reliability and 
delivery of electric power. At a minimum, the report should 
address protective and mitigative measures for these 
vulnerabilities, including hardening of infrastructure, 
blocking of induced currents and voltages, stocking and 
prepositioning of spare parts, and operational and emergency 
planning. The Department is encouraged to coordinate with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to provide an analysis 
of: (1) the actions taken by NERC to set standards for owners 
and operators of electric utilities; and (2) whether such 
standards are sufficient to harden the grid against severe 
space weather and other electromagnetic events.
    State Energy Reliability and Assurance Grants.--The 
Committee recommends no funds for this new activity.

                             Nuclear Energy


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $833,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       907,574,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       936,161,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................      +102,661,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       +28,587,000
 

    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 $936,161,000 for Nuclear Energy, 
$102,661,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $28,587,000 above the 
budget request.
    Spent Fuel Plans.--The Committee directs the Department to 
submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of both 
Houses of Congress not later than 120 days after the enactment 
of this Act on how, under current law, the proximity to 
reservations of federally recognized Indian tribes, or lands 
owned by the United States in trust for the benefit of any 
Indian tribe, impacts the prioritization for disposal of spent 
nuclear fuel.

                NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee provides $504,618,000 for Nuclear Energy 
Research and Development, $6,118,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$21,831,000 above the budget request.
    Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--The Committee 
recommends $111,600,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling 
Technologies, $10,600,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$25,213,000 above the budget request, of which not less than 
$4,000,000 shall be for knowledge and validation work; not less 
than $4,000,000 shall be for integrated energy systems; and not 
less than $2,000,000 for nuclear cyber activities. Within 
available funds, the recommendation provides $17,000,000 for 
Crosscutting Technology Development; $27,200,000 for Nuclear 
Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation, of which funding above 
the request is for additional support for TREAT modeling and 
simulation activities; $24,300,000 for the second year of the 
second five-year term of the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling 
and Simulation; $2,000,000 for Nuclear Energy Traineeships; and 
$41,100,000 for the National Science User Facility, of which 
funding above the request is to expand user facility 
capabilities and collaborations, including up to $2,000,000 to 
support high performance computing activities.
    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 $62,500,000 for SMR Licensing 
Technical Support, $8,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the 
same as the budget request. The Committee directs that all 
fiscal year 2016 funding within this program is to support the 
second award for an SMR design. The Committee is aware that the 
need for fiscal year 2016 funding for the SMR Licensing 
Technical Support program may change throughout the year and 
will consider additional funding according to developments.
    In fiscal year 2014 the Department approved a second award 
which allowed support of advanced innovative technology. At 
that time, the Department's main focus was on advanced safety 
innovation, and thus the Department did not require a utility 
partner or a near term commercialization date. There is now a 
utility partner and an earlier target commercialization date of 
2023 for the second award. The Committee expects DOE will 
submit adequate budget requests to fully support a completed 
design certification from the NRC and standard plant design 
work, as well as a combined construction and operation license 
from NRC for its utility partner. The utility partner 
identified for a previous award may continue with site 
permitting activities and combined construction and operation 
license activities.
    Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and 
Demonstration.--The Committee recommends $141,718,000 for 
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration, 
$8,718,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $33,578,000 above the 
budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation 
provides $40,000,000 for Light Water Reactor Sustainability, of 
which $14,000,000 is to support advanced safety methods 
development and the risk informed safety margin 
characterization methodology; and $99,718,000 for Advanced 
Reactor Concepts to consist of the following activities: 
$33,000,000 is for research of the fuel and graphite 
qualification program for the High Temperature Gas Reactor; 
$17,500,000 is for the continued development of two 
performance-based advanced reactor concepts, of which 
$11,500,000 is follow-on funding for the industry-only 
competition of two performance-based advanced reactor concepts 
held in fiscal year 2015 and $6,000,000 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 
recommendation funds other activities within Advanced Reactor 
Concepts at the requested level. As the nation's leading 
sponsor of research in advanced reactor concepts, the 
Department plays an important role in propelling nuclear energy 
innovation. The Committee encourages the Department to develop 
a plan for demonstrating a new advanced reactor by 2035.
    Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee 
recommends $175,800,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and 
Development, $21,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $41,960,000 
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 $17,000,000 is for additional support of 
feasibility studies for accident tolerant light water reactor 
fuels and $4,000,000 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), $16,500,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$53,360,000 below the budget request. The recommendation 
provides $55,000,000 for UNFD research and development 
activities, $6,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $20,360,000 
below the budget request. Within available funds, the 
recommendation provides $6,000,000 to support activities to 
design and certify a rail car or cars for use with licensed and 
anticipated transportation casks; and $7,000,000 to support 
preparation activities for testing of high burnup fuel. 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. No funding is 
provided for integrated waste management system activities or 
new activities related to Department of Energy-Managed High 
Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel.

                   RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommends $6,800,000 for Radiological 
Facilities Management, $18,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 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 $218,582,000 for Idaho Facilities 
Management, $12,582,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,756,000 
above the budget request.
    INL Operations and Infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommends $216,582,000 for INL Operations and Infrastructure, 
$15,951,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,756,000 above the 
budget request. Of the funds provided above the budget request, 
the recommendation provides an additional $6,000,000 for 
control system modernization at the Advanced Test Reactor 
Critical Facility. Ensuring continued safe operation of the 
Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) is a high priority for the 
Committee. Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear Energy are 
working together to identify upgrades that are needed to ensure 
the safe and reliable operation of ATR until at least 2050. 
However, the Committee is concerned that the period of time 
that has passed since these planning activities were first 
initiated is resulting in an extended schedule for completion. 
Continued delays will only serve to increase costs and risks. 
The Committee directs Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear 
Energy to expedite resolution of any remaining issues and to 
provide an update of progress as soon as possible.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for 
Construction, $3,369,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as 
the request, to commence preliminary design activities of the 
Sample Preparation Laboratory.

                 IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $126,161,000 for Idaho Sitewide 
Safeguards and Security, $22,161,000 above fiscal year 2015 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 $5,000,000 for the Supercritical 
Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation Initiative, 
the same as fiscal year 2015 and 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.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $571,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       560,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       605,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +34,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       +45,000,000
 

    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, 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 $605,000,000 for Fossil Energy 
Research and Development, $34,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 
and $45,000,000 above the budget request.
    Even with the enormous increases shown to almost every 
account within the Department, the budget request once again 
proposes reductions to the Office of Fossil Energy. Nearly 66 
percent of electricity generated in the United States comes 
from coal and natural gas. Fossil fuels will continue to be a 
critical source of energy many years into the future. In order 
to ensure the efficient use of existing fossil energy resources 
and to deliver safe and responsible uses of untapped domestic 
resources, the Office of Fossil Energy must remain one of the 
highest priorities of the Department. The Department's past 
research and development efforts have helped usher in 
technological developments responsible for the production 
increases seen today. The Committee recommendation increases 
funding in these areas to ensure these technological advances 
continue to occur and help American industry maintain 
leadership in the global marketplace for fossil energy 
technologies.

                      COAL--CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

    The Committee recommends $423,900,000 for Coal Carbon 
Capture and Storage (CCS) and Power Systems, $23,900,000 above 
fiscal year 2015 and $54,543,000 above the budget request. 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.
    Carbon Capture.--The Committee recommends $97,800,000 for 
Carbon Capture, $9,800,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$18,831,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $12,000,000 for pre-combustion 
capture systems and $85,800,000 for post-combustion capture 
systems.
    Carbon Storage.--The Committee recommends $104,000,000 for 
Carbon Storage, $4,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$4,768,000 below 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 
$70,000,000 for Storage Infrastructure, of which funding above 
the request is for additional support of detailed site 
assessments for potential storage sites.
    The Committee encourages the Department to expand its 
support for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery 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 
$105,000,000 for Advanced Energy Systems, $2,000,000 above 
fiscal year 2015 and $65,615,000 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 projects that show 
dramatic improvements in combustion capabilities, and pressure 
gain combustion, chemical looping, and pressurized combustion 
technologies projects; $25,000,000 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.
    Within available funds for Gasification Systems, the 
Department is encouraged to support projects near completion.
    Crosscutting Research.--The Committee recommends 
$52,100,000 for Crosscutting Research, $3,100,000 above fiscal 
year 2015 and $858,000 above the budget request. Within 
available funds, the recommendation provides $25,000,000 for 
Coal Utilization Science; $1,500,000 for Energy Analyses; 
$3,000,000 for University Training and Research; and 
$21,500,000 for Plant Optimization Technologies, of which 
$9,000,000 is for the Advanced Ultrasupercritical Program to 
identify, test, qualify, and develop domestic suppliers capable 
of producing components from high temperature materials and 
$6,000,000 is for water management research and development.
    The Committee is concerned with the public safety 
implications of the transportation of crude oil and directs the 
Department to examine methods to reduce its volatility prior to 
shipment.
    National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Coal Research 
and Development.--The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for NETL 
Coal Research and Development, the same as fiscal year 2015 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 expand its external agency activities to develop and test 
commercially viable advanced separation technologies at proof-
of-concept or pilot scale that can be deployed near term for 
the extraction and recovery of rare earth elements and minerals 
from U.S. coal and coal byproduct source shaving the highest 
potential for success. The Committee encourages the Department 
to leverage the capabilities of outside applied researchers in 
implementing these activities.
    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 
$5,000,000 for the Office of Nuclear Energy to support the 
technology development of supercritical carbon dioxide-based 
power conversion from nuclear energy.

                        NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

    The Committee recommends $21,200,000 for Natural Gas 
Technologies, $3,921,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $22,800,000 
below the budget request.
    Research.--The Committee recommends $21,200,000 for Natural 
Gas Technologies Research. Within available funds, the 
recommendation provides $12,500,000 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 $3,500,000 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. The Committee directs no funding for the 
$10,000,000 budget request proposal to quantify emissions from 
natural gas infrastructure.
    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 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.

               UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

    The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for Unconventional 
Fossil Energy Technologies, $8,500,000 above fiscal year 2015 
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.

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $19,950,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        17,500,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        17,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        -2,450,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 retained one Naval Petroleum Reserve 
property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR-3) in Wyoming 
(Teapot Dome field). The Department issued a disposition plan 
for NPR-3 in June 2013 and began implementation of the plan in 
fiscal year 2014. Transfer of NPR-3 to a new owner occurred in 
fiscal year 2015.
    The fiscal year 2016 budget request supports post-sale 
legacy environmental clean-up and remediation at NPR-1 and the 
completion of the NPR-3 disposition plan, with activities 
related to remediation of the landfill and the closeout of the 
Casper office.
    The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval 
petroleum and oil shale reserves is $17,500,000, $2,450,000 
below fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       257,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       212,030,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +12,030,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       -44,970,000
 

    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 
112 days of net import protection for the United States 
economy.
    The Committee recommendation for the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is $212,030,000, $12,030,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$44,970,000 below the budget request. The funding increase 
above fiscal year 2015 is primarily for the major maintenance 
program, to address aging infrastructure and deferred 
maintenance backlog.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................        $1,600,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................         7,600,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................         7,600,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +6,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the 
Northeast began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, 
through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded 
contracts for the lease of commercial storage facilities and 
acquisition of heating oil. The purpose of the reserve is to 
assure home heating oil supplies for the Northeastern States 
during times of very low inventories and significant threats to 
the immediate supply of heating oil. The Northeast Home Heating 
Oil Reserve was established as a separate entity from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The reserve 
contains one million barrels of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), 
which is the equivalent of three to four days of emergency 
stocks in the Northeast.
    The Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating 
Oil Reserve is $7,600,000, $6,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 
and the same as the budget request. After accounting for a 
rescission of $6,000,000 of prior-year unobligated balances in 
fiscal year 2015, the fiscal year 2016 program level is the 
same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request.

                   Energy Information Administration


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $117,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       131,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       117,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       -14,000,000
 

    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 
$117,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration, the 
same as fiscal year 2015 and $14,000,000 below the budget 
request.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $246,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       220,185,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       229,193,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       -16,807,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................        +9,008,000
 

    Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup includes funds to manage 
and remediate 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 $229,193,000 for Non-Defense Environmental 
Cleanup, $16,807,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $9,008,000 
above the budget request.
    Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $61,715,000, 
$18,334,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $7,708,000 above the 
budget request. Within this amount, $9,500,000 is provided to 
commence a pilot project to decommission and decontaminate the 
Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor, as authorized by the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Department recently conducted an 
assessment of the hazards and costs of decontaminating the site 
that indicates costs could reach as much as $80,400,000 
depending on the extent of cleanup performed. The report 
further indicated that there is considerable uncertainty 
regarding the desired end state for the site and the Department 
is not a party to the resolution of such matters. Nevertheless, 
the costs and hazards associated with maintaining this vintage 
reactor site will continue to grow. To meet the intent of the 
authorized project while containing costs within the authorized 
amount of $16,000,000, the Department is directed to utilize 
innovative contracting strategies to demolish, dismantle, and 
dispose of contaminated above-grade structures for the purposes 
of minimizing annual site maintenance requirements until such 
time as the regulatory end state for the site is fully resolved 
by the responsible local stakeholders.
    The Committee commends the Department for its work to 
preserve cultural and sacred sites at the Santa Susana Field 
Laboratory in California and encourages the Department to 
continue working with the community and other federal, state, 
and local agencies to ensure that this portion of the property 
is preserved for future generations.
    Mercury Storage Facility.--The Committee recommends 
$1,300,000 for project planning, engineering, and design of a 
facility for the long-term storage of elemental mercury, as 
required by the Mercury Export Ban Act (MEBA) of 2008. MEBA 
required the Department of Energy to designate at least one 
facility capable of the long-term management and storage of 
domestic elemental mercury, but the Department has not met the 
deadlines required by the Act. The amounts provided allow the 
Department to perform the requisite environmental reviews and 
conduct other design and planning activities as needed to 
produce a record of decision. The Department is directed to 
provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
Congress not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act a report on its preferred alternative, other alternatives 
that were considered, a rough order of magnitude cost estimate 
for new construction of a mercury storage facility if new 
construction is a feasible alternative, and an estimated fee 
structure to recover the costs of operations and/or 
construction of such facility. The report shall also identify 
whether there are any potential conflicts that may be 
encountered regarding competition with private sector disposal 
and storage facilities.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $625,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       542,289,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       625,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       +82,711,000
 

    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 
$625,000,000 for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, the same as fiscal 
year 2015 and $82,711,000 above the budget request.
    Oak Ridge.--The Committee recommends $163,946,000, 
$3,952,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $9,711,000 above the 
budget request.
    Paducah.--The Committee recommends $193,652,000, 
$13,563,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $25,000,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee supports prompt development of a 
long-term strategy to decontaminate and decommission the 
Paducah gaseous diffusion plant. The Committee provides funding 
above the budget request to expedite deactivation activities 
that will minimize operating and maintenance costs while 
developing those end state plans.
    Portsmouth.--The Committee recommends $213,417,000, 
$607,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $48,000,000 above the 
budget request.
    Title X Uranium/Thorium Reimbursements.--The Committee 
recommends $32,959,000 to reimburse private licensees for the 
cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites in 
accordance with Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
$22,959,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget 
request. The budget request included funding for Title X 
activities for the first time since fiscal year 2008, despite 
escalating unpaid claims. Fulfilling the obligation to fully 
reimburse licensees is important to the health and safety of 
the affected communities. Moving forward, the Committee expects 
the Department to continue to provide sufficient resources 
within future budgets to reimburse licensees for approved claim 
balances.
    Uranium Transfers.--The Department has been considering 
ways to alternatively assess the impact of its uranium 
transfers to meet legislative requirements. Not later than 90 
days after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall 
provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
Congress a report that includes all reports, analyses, data, 
and methodologies used to arrive at the latest Secretarial 
determination; any additional information that the Department 
determines should be considered when evaluating the impacts of 
its uranium transfers; a description of the legal authorities 
under which the Secretary transferred uranium in fiscal year 
2015; and recommendations to minimize the impact of uranium 
transfers on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, and 
enrichment industries, including any actions that would require 
new authority for the Department to implement.

                                Science


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................    $5,071,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................     5,339,794,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................     5,100,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +29,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................      -239,794,000
 

    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 in fiscal year 2016, 
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 $5,100,000,000 for the 
Office of Science, $29,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$239,794,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of workplace 
diversity in the Department of Energy's National Laboratories. 
The Committee encourages the Department to continue to develop 
and broaden partnerships with minority serving institutions, 
including Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) and Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). In particular, the 
Committee encourages programs involving undergraduate research 
experiences, high speed computing access and education, 
nonproliferation studies, and research inclusive of the social 
sciences.

                 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 $537,539,000 for 
Advanced Scientific Computing Research, $3,461,000 below fiscal 
year 2015 and $83,455,000 below 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. However, the Committee is 
aware that many challenges still remain towards the development 
of exascale computing machines. The Department is directed to 
deliver to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
Congress not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act a report on the plan for delivering exascale capabilities 
within the Office of Science. At a minimum, the report shall 
include an assessment of the technical challenges of exascale 
computing architecture and develop a plan for addressing these 
issues. The plan should take into account various budget 
scenarios when developing funding profiles.
    The Committee encourages the Department to support Highly 
Integrated Photonics to accelerate computing research leading 
to exascale computing while reducing computing energy 
consumption by a factor of 100 or more. The program is 
encouraged to work with small business entities to support 
these needed technology applications.
    The recommendation includes $99,000,000 for exascale 
activities within the Office of Science.
    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 $77,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership 
Computing Facility; $101,000,000 for the Oak Ridge Leadership 
Computing Facility; and $76,000,000 for the National Energy 
Research Scientific Computing Center at Lawrence Berkeley 
National Laboratory. Within available funds, the recommendation 
includes $8,000,000 for the Computational Science Graduate 
Fellowship Program.
    Brain Initiative.--The Committee encourages the Department 
to work with the National Science Foundation and the National 
Institutes of Health on a national brain observatory to 
leverage its high performance computing capabilities in order 
to advance a deeper understanding of the brain and how it 
works. This collaboration will lead to novel brain imaging 
technologies and brain inspired computing applications that 
will improve the Department's high performance computing 
capabilities and expertise.
    For mathematical, computational, and computer sciences 
research, the recommendation includes not less than 
$175,503,000.

                         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 
$1,770,306,000 for Basic Energy Sciences, $37,106,000 above 
fiscal year 2015 and $78,994,000 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 $1,578,440,000 for 
Basic Energy Sciences research, $16,060,000 below fiscal year 
2015 and $70,560,000 below the budget request. Within available 
funds, the recommendation provides $97,800,000 for Energy 
Frontier Research Centers.
    For materials science and engineering research, the 
recommendation includes $377,085,000, of which $14,355,000 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 $24,137,000 for the fourth year of 
the Batteries and Energy Storage Innovation Hub.
    For chemical sciences, geosciences, and biosciences, the 
recommendation includes $305,974,000. The recommendation 
includes the requested level of $15,000,000 for the Fuels from 
Sunlight Innovation Hub, which begins the first year of its 
second five-year term in fiscal year 2016.
    For scientific user facilities, the recommendation includes 
$895,381,000, of which $32,168,000 is for research; and 
$35,500,000 is for major items of equipment. The recommendation 
includes $797,049,000 for facilities operations of the nation's 
synchrotron radiation light sources, high flux neutron sources, 
and nanoscale science research centers, of which $245,419,000 
is for the High-Flux Neutron Sources and $443,150,000 is for 
the Synchrotron Radiation Light Sources.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $191,866,000 for 
Basic Energy Sciences construction, $53,166,000 above fiscal 
year 2015 and $8,434,000 below the budget request.

                 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 $538,000,000 for Biological and 
Environmental Research, $54,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$74,400,000 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, 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 fourth year 
of the second five-year term of the three Bioenergy Research 
Centers, the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request.
    The Committee supports the Department's funding for 
academia to perform climate model studies that include the 
collection and evaluation of atmospheric data from satellite 
observations obtained in cooperation with NASA. Satellite 
observations of the atmosphere within the context of the Earth 
as a global system provide information that is critical in the 
interpretation of earth-based observations.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports basic research 
and experimentation aiming to harness nuclear fusion for energy 
production. The Committee recommends $467,600,000 for Fusion 
Energy Sciences, $100,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$47,600,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides not less than $69,500,000 for the 
National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX); not less than 
$80,000,000 for DIII-D; and not less than $18,000,000 for 
Alcator C-Mod.
    Research.--The Committee recommends $317,600,000 for the 
domestic fusion program, $100,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$47,600,000 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 ITER project.
    For the science subprogram, which advances the predictive 
understanding of plasma confinement, dynamics, and interactions 
with surrounding materials, the recommendation provides 
$188,860,000, of which $35,000,000 is for DIII-D Research; 
$6,145,000 is for Alcator C-Mod research; $12,000,000 is for 
International Research; $30,500,000 is for NSTX research; 
$17,500,000 is for High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas; 
$25,000,000 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 $101,330,000, of which $45,000,000 is 
for DIII-D; $39,000,000 is for NSTX operations; and $11,855,000 
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 $27,410,000, of which 
$14,000,000 is for Materials Research.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for 
the U.S. contribution to the ITER project, the same as fiscal 
year 2015 and the budget request.
    The Committee continues to believe the ITER project 
represents an important step forward for energy sciences and 
has the potential to revolutionize the current understanding of 
fusion energy. In 2013, the third biennial management 
assessment report identified eleven management challenges that 
threaten the success of the ITER project. The Committee 
recognizes the continued efforts of the ITER organization in 
responding to these recommendations and expects that ITER's new 
leadership will implement reforms in a timely manner. The 
success of ITER depends on making continued project management 
progress and the Committee includes funding for the ITER 
Council to continue its implementation efforts. Should the ITER 
Council fail to reform the project management culture, the 
Committee will be forced to reconsider its support for the 
international project.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    The High Energy Physics program supports fundamental 
research into the elementary constituents of matter and energy, 
and ultimately into the nature of space and time. The program 
focuses on particle physics theory and experimentation in three 
areas: the energy frontier, which investigates new particles 
and fundamental forces through high-energy experimentation; the 
intensity frontier, which focuses on rare events to better 
understand our fundamental model of the universe's elementary 
constituents; and the cosmic frontier, which investigates the 
nature of the universe and its form of matter and energy on 
cosmic scales. The Committee recommends $776,000,000 for High 
Energy Physics, $10,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$12,000,000 below the budget request.
    Within available funds, the recommendation includes 
$22,000,000 for the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and 
its alternatives, to include $4,000,000 for research and 
development and $18,000,000 for project engineering and design 
activities. 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 LBNF construction must be affordable under existing 
budgetary constraints.
    Research.--The Committee recommends $717,900,000 for High 
Energy Physics research, $11,100,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$14,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee strongly supports the Department's efforts to 
advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics 
Prioritization Panel and urges the Department to maintain a 
careful balance among competing priorities and among small, 
medium, and large scale projects.
    For energy frontier experimental physics, the 
recommendation provides $154,555,000. The recommendation funds 
all activities within energy frontier experimental physics at 
the requested level.
    For intensity frontier experimental physics, the 
recommendation provides $246,196,000. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $55,924,000 for research; 
$157,572,000 for facility operations and experimental support, 
of which $135,100,000 is for Fermi Complex Operations and 
$15,000,000 is for Homestake Mine; and $32,700,000 for 
Projects, of which $10,200,000 is for the Muon g-2 Experiment 
and $18,500,000 is for Future Projects research and 
development.
    For cosmic frontier experimental physics, the 
recommendation provides $119,325,000. Within available funds, 
the recommendation provides $50,079,000 for Research; 
$10,545,000 for Facility Operations and Experimental Support; 
and $58,701,000 for Projects, of which $40,800,000 is for the 
Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Camera and $15,800,000 is for 
the Second Generation Dark Matter experiments.
    For other subprograms that comprise the high energy physics 
program, the recommendation provides $60,317,000 for 
theoretical and computational physics; $115,369,000 for 
advanced technology research and development, of which 
$39,924,000 is for General Accelerators; and not less than 
$5,000,000 for Accelerator Stewardship.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $58,100,000 for 
High Energy Physics construction, $21,100,000 above fiscal year 
2015 and $2,000,000 above the budget request. Within available 
funds, the recommendation includes $40,100,000 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 
$616,165,000 for Nuclear Physics, $20,665,000 above fiscal year 
2015 and $8,435,000 below the budget request.
    Operations and Maintenance.--The Committee recommends 
$510,665,000 for Nuclear Physics Operations and Maintenance, 
$21,665,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,435,000 below the 
budget request. For medium energy nuclear physics, the 
recommendation provides $158,062,000, of which $100,170,000 is 
for operations at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator 
Facility to support runtime at the 12GeV Continuous Electron 
Beam Accelerator Facility. The Committee remains supportive of 
the advanced nuclear physics occurring at the facility and 
encourages a quick transition to operations once the detector 
upgrades are complete. For heavy ion nuclear physics, the 
recommendation provides $204,931,000, of which $168,500,000 is 
for operations at Brookhaven National Lab to support 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 $105,500,000 for 
Nuclear Physics construction, $1,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 
and $2,000,000 below the request. The recommended level of 
funding includes $98,000,000 for the Facility for Rare Isotope 
Beams.

           WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

    The Committee recommends $20,500,000 for workforce 
development for teachers and scientists, $1,000,000 above 
fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommends $89,890,000 for Science 
Laboratories Infrastructure, $10,290,000 above fiscal year 2015 
and $23,710,000 below the budget request.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for 
Science Laboratories Infrastructure construction, $6,010,000 
below fiscal year 2015 and $8,910,000 below the request.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $103,000,000 to meet safeguards 
and security requirements at Office of Science facilities, 
$10,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget 
request.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends $181,000,000 for Science Program 
Direction, $2,700,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $6,400,000 
below the request.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................            $- - -
Budget estimate, 2016.................................             - - -
Recommended, 2016.....................................       150,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................      +150,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................      +150,000,000
 

    The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for 
Nuclear Waste Disposal, $150,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 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 capability to respond 
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the adjudicatory 
process, and to otherwise fully support the Yucca Mountain 
licensing process. The recommendation includes support for 
affected units of local government who have formally consented 
to host Yucca Mountain.
    The Committee reiterates that the Administration's repeated 
statements that Yucca Mountain is not a ``workable option'' 
ignores both the consent of the host community and the 
expressed intent of Congress.

               Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $280,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       325,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       280,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       -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 2015 
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, 2015...................................       $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        42,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        42,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

                         OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $-25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       -25,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       -25,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

                           NET APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        17,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        17,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    The Committee recommends administrative expenses of 
$42,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and 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.

        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................        $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................         6,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................         6,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +2,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
established a direct loan program to support the development of 
advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the 
United States. The program provides loans to automobile and 
automobile part manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, 
expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the 
United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or 
qualified components, and for associated engineering 
integration costs.
    The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced 
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $2,000,000 
above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. The 
funds provided support administrative operations only.

                      Departmental Administration


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $245,142,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       270,682,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       247,420,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +2,278,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       -23,262,000
 

                                REVENUES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................     $-119,171,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................      -117,171,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................      -117,171,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +2,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

                           NET APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $125,971,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       153,511,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       130,249,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +4,278,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       -23,262,000
 

    The Committee recommendation for Departmental 
Administration is $247,420,000, $2,278,000 more than fiscal 
year 2015 and $23,262,000 less than the budget request. The 
recommendation for revenues is $117,171,000 as requested, 
resulting in a net appropriation of $130,249,000. Funding 
recommended for Departmental Administration provides for 
general management and program support functions benefiting all 
elements of the Department of Energy, including the National 
Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array 
of Headquarters activities not directly associated with the 
execution of specific programs.
    Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.--The Committee 
recommends $16,000,000, 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.
    Economic Impact and Diversity.--The recommendation includes 
$10,000,000 for Economic Impact and Diversity, $3,800,000 more 
than fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request.
    International Affairs.--The recommendation includes 
$13,000,000 for International Affairs, the same as fiscal year 
2015 and $10,600,000 less than the budget request.
    Office of Management.--The recommendation includes 
$64,598,000 for the Office of Management. The recommendation 
includes an increase of $1,652,000 for cost estimating.
    Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis.--The 
recommendation includes $31,297,000, $3,703,000 less than the 
budget request. The Committee includes requested funding to 
support the Quadrennial Energy Review.
    Working Capital Fund.--The Committee is concerned that the 
Department is not clearly reporting which programs, projects, 
or activities are paying into the Working Capital Fund. The 
Committee already provides funding for the Working Capital Fund 
within funds for program direction in various accounts and is 
concerned that the practice of charging additional costs beyond 
those reported is duplicative, not transparent, and may not 
meet the intended purpose for which those funds were 
appropriated. Not later than 30 days after the enactment of 
this Act, the Department shall provide to the Committees on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report of charges 
to each appropriation by program, project, or activity in 
fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016 for the Working Capital Fund. 
The report shall detail the Department's existing legal 
authorities and enabling statutes that permit the Department to 
pay these expenses from the particular programs, projects, or 
activities identified.
    Renewable Fuel Standard.--Under section 211(o)(9)(B) of the 
Clean Air Act, a small refinery may petition the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator for an exemption from the 
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) on the basis that the refinery 
experiences a ``disproportionate economic hardship'' under the 
RFS. When evaluating a petition, the Administrator consults 
with the Secretary of Energy to determine whether a 
``disproportionate economic hardship'' exists. According to the 
Department of Energy's March 2011 Small Refinery Exemption 
Study, a ``disproportionate economic hardship must encompass 
two broad components: a high cost of compliance relative to the 
industry average, and an effect sufficient to cause a 
significant impairment of the refinery operations.'' The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to clarify that if 
either of these two components exists, the Department shall at 
a minimum recommend to EPA a 50 percent waiver of RFS 
requirements for the petitioner. The Committee also directs the 
Secretary to seek small refinery comment before making changes 
to its scoring metrics for small refinery petitions for RFS 
waivers.
    Support for Ukraine.--In consideration of Russian 
aggression in Ukraine, the Committee directs the Department of 
Energy to examine the potential for leveraging its expertise in 
support of energy-related issues in Ukraine. Not later than 120 
days after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall 
report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
Congress on what technical assistance the Department could 
provide to Ukraine.

                      Office of Inspector General


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $40,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        46,424,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        46,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +5,500,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................          -424,000
 

    The Office of 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 Committee recommendation is $46,000,000, $5,500,000 
more than fiscal year 2015 and $424,000 less than the budget 
request.
    To the extent possible, the Inspector General shall ensure 
the findings of its investigative reports are made available to 
the Committee and the public, particularly where revised 
versions of its reports may be required in order to protect 
privacy or remove other pieces of protected information that 
would otherwise limit distribution to internal Official Use 
Only.

                    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 Federal Salaries 
and Expenses; outside of the NNSA, these include Defense 
Environmental Cleanup, Defense Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning, and Other Defense 
Activities. Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided 
below.

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

    The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. 
national security through the military application of nuclear 
technology and reducing the global danger from the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous 
agency within the Department, carries out these 
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title 
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000, the NNSA is responsible for the management and operation 
of the nation's nuclear weapons complex, naval reactors, and 
nuclear nonproliferation activities.

                           Weapons Activities


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................    $8,186,657,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................     8,846,948,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................     8,713,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................      +526,343,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................      -133,948,000
 

    Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety, 
security, reliability, and effectiveness of the nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing. The 
Committee's recommendation simplifies the budget structure for 
Weapons Activities into four main elements: Directed Stockpile 
Work; Research, Development, Technology and Engineering; 
Infrastructure and Operations; and Security. The Committee 
recommends a fiscal year 2016 level of $8,713,000,000 for 
Weapons Activities, $526,343,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$133,948,000 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 $3,354,296,000 for Directed Stockpile Work, 
$661,708,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $167,037,000 above the 
budget request.
    Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends full 
funding for the NNSA's life extension programs, including the 
ongoing refurbishment efforts for the B61, W76, and W88 
warheads. The Committee also recommends initiating a new life 
extension program for the W80 that will support development of 
a Long Range Standoff Missile (LRSO). While the Committee has 
not established a formal definition of what constitutes a 
``life extension program'' compared to other major 
refurbishment efforts, the Committee will consider 
refurbishment work with the purpose of extending the life of an 
existing warhead with a total cost of greater than 
$1,000,000,000 to be a life extension program. The Committee is 
concerned about the aggressive schedule to accomplish the 
delivery of concurrent life extension programs for the B61 and 
W88 in the 2020-2025 timeframe. Such peaks in the NNSA's 
production lines are difficult and expensive to manage. The 
Committee encourages the NNSA to investigate work levelling 
strategies for the W88 that would help alleviate these 
pressures.
    W88 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends 
$220,176,000, $54,776,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same 
as the budget request. In fiscal year 2015, initial development 
work for this program was funded under the title ``W88 Alt 
370''. While the NNSA requested to continue designating this 
program as the W88 Alt 370, the size and scope of the work now 
planned for the W88 merits increased transparency and 
integrated management as part of a formal acquisition program. 
The NNSA is directed to integrate the costs of replacing 
limited life components concurrently with other refurbishment 
activities in its selected acquisition reports for the W88 life 
extension program.
    W80-4 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends 
$195,037,000, the same as the budget request. In fiscal year 
2015, initial conceptual work for this program was funded at 
$9,418,000 under the title ``Cruise Missile Warhead Life 
Extension Study''. While the recommendation provides the full 
funding amount requested for the W80-4, continued support for 
the NNSA's requested schedule is contingent on the ability of 
the NNSA to meet the Committee-directed reporting requirements 
in a timely manner and on the synchronization of this work with 
the schedule for the LRSO in the budget for the Department of 
Defense.
    The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has already 
settled on two alternatives for the W80-4 that are more 
expensive than the B61 life extension program and will require 
funding peaks that will compete with other planned major multi-
year programs and projects. The NNSA has a history of spending 
large amounts of funding to develop alternatives that are 
tabled in order to pursue a more affordable option. The NNSA 
must demonstrate it is able to overcome these past failures by 
changing the way it conducts its alternative analyses. To 
provide enhanced accountability for the alternatives being 
pursued and to ensure that other options were not prematurely 
excluded, the Committee directs the NNSA to task the JASONs 
Defense Advisory Group or another independent group to perform 
a red team assessment of the NNSA's alternatives selected for 
the W80-4 life extension program. Not later than 180 days after 
the enactment of this Act, the red team should provide a report 
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 
that identifies whether additional alternatives exist that 
might improve the affordability of the program and reduce 
overall programmatic risks.
    Research and Development Support.--The Committee recommends 
$41,059,000, $15,559,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,900,000 
above the budget request. The recommendation includes funding 
above the budget request for maintenance of the nuclear testing 
heritage as requested within Program Readiness.
    Strategic Materials.--The Committee recommends 
$589,176,000, $589,176,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$174,217,000 above the budget request. The recommendation for 
Strategic Materials includes funding for uranium, plutonium and 
tritium sustainment activities that were requested as ``Nuclear 
Materials Commodities''. The recommendation further expands the 
request to specify funds for the management of nuclear 
materials to other materials of strategic significance by 
including funding requested for Material Recycling and 
Recovery, Storage, Nuclear Materials Integration, and other 
planning efforts within Strategic Materials Sustainment.
    Domestic Uranium Enrichment.--The Committee recommends 
$50,000,000, $47,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000 
below the budget request. The bill contains a provision that 
provides special reprogramming authority of an additional 
$50,000,000 subject to the Committee's normal notification 
guidelines. The Committee is awaiting the results of a directed 
interagency study that will revalidate the tritium and low 
enriched uranium requirements to meet national security needs 
and that will identify a preferred approach to meeting those 
requirements. However, the goals of the demonstration project 
have been successfully met and there is little value to 
indefinitely operating the centrifuges if the Department cannot 
identify a near-term need to construct a national security 
train of centrifuges. The recommendation will provide 
flexibility to meet national security needs should decisive 
near-term needs with a clear funding strategy be identified.

           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING

    The NNSA's Research, Development, Technology, and 
Engineering (RDT&E;) activities focus on the development and 
maintenance of critical capabilities, tools, and processes that 
support science-based stockpile stewardship and continued 
certification of the stockpile in the absence of underground 
nuclear testing. For RDT&E;, the Committee recommends 
$1,774,174,000, $7,983,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$2,329,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee supports maintaining a robust scientific 
enterprise that leverages the unique attributes of the national 
security laboratories as the foundation of a science-based 
stockpile stewardship program. The NNSA reduced funding for 
science and engineering activities in its budget request and 
the Committee is concerned that undercutting funding for such 
activities could undermine the long-term capability of the NNSA 
to maintain an aging nuclear stockpile. The NNSA is pursuing 
several unconventional and complex options for stockpile 
stewardship that will present significant certification 
challenges. Based on an independent review of these approaches 
that was directed by the Committee, it is apparent there are 
still significant scientific and engineering hurdles to 
overcome before such approaches can be adopted. The Committee 
will continue to favor stockpile proposals that are 
conservative and well understood in order to minimize the 
introduction of unnecessary risks into the stockpile. 
Nevertheless, the Committee supports continued funding to 
pursue experimental activities that will improve the basic 
fundamentals of weapons physics and advance concepts to improve 
safety, security, or maintainability.
    Science.--The Committee recommends $412,947,000, $856,000 
above fiscal year 2015 and $23,333,000 above the budget 
request. Within this amount, the recommendation provides 
increases above the request for Advanced Certification to 
better understand the properties of plutonium and to advance 
concepts for pit reuse. Within funding for Primary Assessment 
Technologies, the recommendation includes funding to expand 
predictive science capabilities to designs outside those in the 
current U.S. stockpile to enhance U.S. capabilities to assess 
foreign state weapons activities. Within Advanced Radiography, 
the recommendation includes no funding for new radiography 
capabilities at U1a. The NNSA did not provide a project data 
sheet with a multi-year funding plan as required by the 
Committee.
    Academic Alliances and Partnerships.--The Committee 
recommends $49,800,000 for Academic Alliances and Partnerships. 
Funding for these activities was requested within the Science 
and Site Stewardship programs. Within this amount, $33,300,000 
is provided for the Stewardship Science Academic Alliance 
Program. The NNSA reduced funding for its university 
partnership program in its budget request by 7.5 percent. 
Undercutting these foundational partnerships will ultimately 
weaken the scientific base upon which the NNSA relies to 
certify the nuclear stockpile. Also within this amount, 
$16,500,000 is provided for the Minority Serving Institution 
Partnerships 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), and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) 
to ensure diversity within the next generation of scientists 
and researchers addressing nuclear security and environmental 
management issues.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield.--The Committee 
recommends $511,050,000, $1,845,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$8,600,000 above the budget request. Within these funds, 
$68,000,000 is for the OMEGA Laser Facility at the University 
of Rochester, $322,500,000 is for the National Ignition 
Facility, and $7,000,000 is for the Naval Research Laboratory
    Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee 
recommends $605,000,000, $7,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$18,006,000 below the budget request.
    Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends 
$113,800,000, $6,600,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $16,256,000 
below the budget request. Within this amount, $16,000,000 is 
provided for Additive Manufacturing. The budget request applied 
development of additive manufacturing capabilities holistically 
across the enterprise, but the Committee is concerned that such 
an approach reduces transparency into how well and how fast the 
NNSA is developing these advanced production technologies. In 
addition, the NNSA must apply a certain degree of integrated 
management to these efforts to promote a domestic contractor 
supplier base. The recommendation does not preclude the use or 
development of additive production technologies within funds 
for life extension programs or other areas where those costs 
are appropriately attributed to that effort. In addition, the 
Committee is concerned that the full scope of work requested 
within Advanced Manufacturing did not meet Congressional intent 
of the program. This activity is not intended to fund the 
production readiness costs of life extension programs that are 
in phase 6.3 and higher. Such costs should be managed and fully 
accounted for as part of the appropriate life extension 
program.

                     INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

    Infrastructure and Operations (formerly Readiness in 
Technical Base and Facilities) provides consolidated funding 
for the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization of NNSA 
facilities and infrastructure. The Committee recommends 
$2,228,164,000 for Infrastructure and Operations, $194,764,000 
above fiscal year 2015 and $1,173,683,000 above the budget 
request.
    The recommendation eliminates duplication by consolidating 
the budget request for three separate infrastructure accounts 
(Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, Infrastructure and 
Safety, and Site Stewardship) within the recommendation for 
Infrastructure and Operations. The recommendation further 
simplifies the budget structure by combining separately-
identified funding lines for certain activities that did not 
have clear infrastructure-based performance goals. The 
Committee does not support changing the budget structure each 
year to conform to internal organizational changes and views 
this matter to be largely one of agency budget execution that 
has no relationship to the purpose for which funds are 
appropriated by the Congress. The Committee's continued support 
for budget flexibility for maintenance and operations across 
the NNSA sites and for recapitalization projects is contingent 
on the NNSA's willingness to provide the Committee with the 
information it needs to conduct proper oversight of these 
activities.
    Safety and Environmental Operations.--The Committee 
recommends $107,701,000 for the Nuclear Criticality Safety 
Program, Nuclear Safety Research and Development, Containers, 
and Long-Term Stewardship activities. The NNSA is directed to 
provide a funding table that details the funding amounts to be 
provided to each of these four program elements in future 
budget requests.
    Maintenance and Repair of Facilities.--The Committee 
recommends $277,000,000. The recommendation includes 
$50,000,000 above the budget request to address the backlog of 
deferred maintenance across the NNSA's nuclear security 
enterprise. Within this amount, $25,000,000 is for maintenance 
of the NNSA's High-Risk Excess Facilities to improve the 
transparency of how much is being spent to indefinitely 
maintain these deteriorating facilities and to allow the 
Committee to better conduct oversight of the adequacy of the 
NNSA's maintenance program. The NNSA is directed to provide a 
funding table that details the site splits for maintenance in 
future budget requests.
    Recapitalization.--The Committee recommends $352,524,000. 
Within this amount, $253,724,000 is provided for basic 
infrastructure projects to be executed by the Office of 
Infrastructure and Safety and $98,800,000 is provided for 
capability-based investments to be executed by the Office of 
Defense Programs. As a result of progress in establishing a 
planning basis to formulate and execute its recapitalization 
efforts, the Committee recommendation does not designate 
specific funding by individual recapitalization projects. 
Funding for Recapitalization is intended for projects that are 
clearly defined and ready to be executed. The recommendation 
does not include funds requested for ``reserves'' and 
``contingency'' purposes since funds to meet emergent needs are 
provided within Operation of Facilities and Maintenance and 
Repair of Facilities.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $660,149,000, 
$235,149,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $41,000 below the 
budget request. The Committee is concerned that there is little 
accountability for advancing construction projects at the early 
design stages and that advance funds are being requested to 
initiate new construction without providing the cost and 
schedule projections for which the NNSA is accountable. Without 
this information, the Committee cannot determine whether the 
projects requested are affordable and are being managed 
appropriately so that it may approve new start authority. 
Previously, the Committee funded initial project engineering 
and design (PED) in a separate project and then considered new 
start authority to proceed to construction at a later date when 
more information was available. In order to preserve the 
Committee's ability to approve new start authority, the 
recommendation provides funds separately for PED and directs 
the NNSA to request funds separately for PED in future budget 
requests. The Committee will consider a request to initiate a 
new construction start when the Department is prepared to 
provide an accurate multi-year cost and schedule estimate with 
its budget request.
    16-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, Various 
Locations.--The Committee recommends $34,103,000. Within this 
amount, $18,105,000 is for Transuranic Liquid Waste Facility 
Design, $13,998,000 is for TA-55 Reinvestment Phase 3, and 
$2,000,000 is for the Y-12 Emergency Operations Center. The 
Committee shall consider separate new start authority to 
commence construction on these projects upon submission of a 
request that details the multi-year cost and schedule 
projections for each project.
    16-D-621 TA-3 Substation Replacement, LANL.--The Committee 
recommends $25,000,000, the same as the budget request. No 
funding is available for construction until the NNSA provides 
the details of its cost and schedule performance baseline. The 
recommendation for substation construction at Los Alamos 
National Laboratory does not constitute a new start for a 
similar planned replacement at Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory and the NNSA should request separate funding for 
this project in a future budget request.
    11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Phase 2, LANL.--The 
Committee recommends $3,903,000, the same as the budget 
request. The Committee notes that full funding was provided for 
this project in fiscal year 2015 and the funds requested in the 
fiscal year 2016 budget request are due to cost growth 
associated with project bids being significantly higher than 
the NNSA's initial estimates.
    07-D-220 Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility, 
LANL.--The Committee recommends $11,533,000, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee notes that costs have grown to 
$82,694,000, an increase of $15,481,000 or 23 percent, since 
construction funds for the Low Level Liquid Waste Facility 
portion of this project were first requested and provided. The 
NNSA spent $28,443,000 advancing a design concept for this 
project that was determined to be unaffordable several years 
later. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned about this and 
other projects at Los Alamos because the NNSA's contractor does 
not have a certified earned value management system against 
which performance can be appropriately tracked and managed. The 
NNSA is directed to provide to the Committees on Appropriations 
of both Houses of Congress not later than 90 days after the 
enactment of this Act a report on the root causes of the cost 
growth of this project.
    06-D-141, Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), Y-12.--The 
Committee recommends $430,000,000, $95,000,000 above fiscal 
year 2015 and the same as the budget request. Within this 
amount, $289,128,000 is for Project Engineering and Design and 
$140,872,000 is for Site Preparation. None of these funds shall 
be available for Site Preparation or other construction 
activities until the NNSA submits an independently-verified 
cost estimate for the entire scope of the project that details 
the cost and schedule targets for each planned subproject to 
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
    The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has not fully 
addressed the root causes of its past project management 
failures for major construction projects. Few details have been 
solidified on the UPF project and the NNSA's inability to lay 
out any of its plans in its budget request is indicative of the 
challenges that the NNSA faces in delivering this facility. The 
NNSA is deviating from the formal processes set out in DOE 
Order 413.3B for the reaffirmation of critical decision-1 and 
the project plans show significant funds being spent for 
construction activities before the project baseline is set and 
without formal approval from the acquisition executive, in this 
case the Deputy Secretary of Energy. Further, the NNSA 
conducted an internal peer review that indicated a potential 
for cost growth above the $6,500,000,000 cost target. The 
Committee will continue to closely monitor progress on the 
project to ensure these and other issues are being addressed.
    04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) 
Replacement Project, LANL.--The Committee recommends 
$155,610,000. Within this amount, $117,000,000 is provided for 
the RLUOB Equipment Installation, Phase 2 subproject and 
$38,610,000 is provided for the PF-4 Equipment Installation 
subproject.

                                SECURITY

    Defense Nuclear Security.--The Committee recommends 
$682,891,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, $46,768,000 above 
fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000 above the budget request.
    The recommendation provides additional funding above the 
budget request to meet the lifecycle need to replace security 
cameras and to meet shortfalls anticipated in funding for 
protective forces at Y-12 and other NNSA sites. The NNSA shall 
keep the Committee informed as it analyzes the changes to its 
cost accounting structures for the combined contract at Y-12 
and Pantex.
    Security Improvements Program.--The Committee recommends 
$35,000,000 to commence a Security Improvements Program that is 
intended to address the backlog of security projects that must 
be performed over the next several years. The NNSA has 
identified over $2,000,000,000 in security infrastructure 
upgrades that are needed, but the NNSA has not adequately 
prioritized these upgrades in its budget request. The 
Committee's recommendation enhances the visibility of these 
efforts and ensures funding is available to meet these 
additional costs that are above and beyond the base operating 
and maintenance costs of the NNSA's physical security program. 
To the extent possible, the NNSA should establish clear scope, 
cost, and schedule requirements by performing work as discrete 
projects. Projects with a total project cost greater than 
$10,000,000 that represent capability upgrades and new 
construction shall be performed as line-item construction in 
accordance with existing statutory requirements. Projects that 
are needed to replace, maintain, and improve the reliability of 
aging systems shall be conducted as operating projects to 
expedite delivery and reduce overall costs.
    The Committee is concerned that the NNSA terminated the Y-
12 Security Improvements Project without completing the full 
scope of work planned. The budget request also defers 
improvements that are needed at the Pantex Plant. The NNSA 
shall ensure that these investments are prioritized in 
developing its multi-year plans for its Security Improvements 
Program.
    14-D-710 Device Assembly Facility Argus Installation 
Project.--The Committee recommends $13,000,000, the same as the 
budget request.
    Information Technology and Cyber Security.--The Committee 
recommends $157,588,000 for Information Technology and Cyber 
Security, $22,058,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as 
the budget request.
    Secure Transportation Asset.--The Committee recommends 
$232,000,000 for Secure Transportation Asset, $13,000,000 above 
fiscal year 2015 and $19,610,000 below the budget request. The 
budget request included a significant ramp up in the size of 
the federal workforce, but the NNSA has not provided any 
information to justify such an increase and reductions in the 
planned transport of mixed oxide feedstock will reduce 
requirements.

                       LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS

    The Committee provides $283,887,000 for payments into the 
legacy University of California contractor employee defined 
benefit pension plans, $23,171,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
the same as the budget request.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation


                    (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................    $1,616,638,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................     1,940,302,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................     1,907,606,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................      +290,968,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       -32,696,000
 

    The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account provides 
funding to programs of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration that prevent, counter, and respond to global 
nuclear threats, according to a revised budget structure for 
fiscal year 2016. The Committee's recommendation for Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1,907,606,000, $290,968,000 above 
fiscal year 2015 and $32,696,000 below the budget request. The 
recommended amount includes a rescission of $10,394,000 in 
prior-year unobligated balances. As requested, the 
recommendation includes funding for Nuclear Counterterrorism 
and Incident Response activities that were funded within 
Weapons Activities in fiscal year 2015. After accounting for 
this programmatic shift, the recommendation is $52,598,000 
above the comparative level for these activities in fiscal year 
2015.
    Continuing U.S. Nonproliferation Activities in Russia.--As 
in fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommendation provides no 
new funds to enter into contracts and agreements with Russia in 
fiscal year 2016.

                    DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

    Funding for the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 
is provided across five new programmatic areas: Global Material 
Security, Material Management and Minimization, 
Nonproliferation and Arms Control, Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation R&D;, and Nonproliferation Construction.
    Global Material Security.--The Committee recommends 
$422,949,000 for Global Material Security, $3,802,000 below the 
budget request. The NNSA is directed to report separate funding 
for its domestic and international radiological material 
programs in its budget request. While the recommendation for 
Radiological Security provides funding for domestic and 
international activities within one reprogramming control 
point, continued support for this flexibility is contingent on 
the transparency of these activities in the NNSA's budget 
justifications.
    Material Management and Minimization.--The Committee 
recommends $310,584,000 for Material Management and 
Minimization, $1,000,000 below the budget request. The 
recommendation does not include $1,000,000 for Russian Surplus 
Materials Disposition that is requested within International 
Plutonium Disposition. The NNSA should identify additional 
funding needed to close out these activities when submitting a 
Secretarial waiver for enduring nonproliferation activities in 
Russia. The Committee is concerned that the U.S. is subsidizing 
the cost of removing materials from high-income nations that do 
not need financial assistance to enhance the security of their 
nuclear materials. While there may be circumstances where it is 
in the national security interest to provide incentives for the 
removal of materials from high-income nations, the NNSA must 
improve the justification for such actions. The Committee is 
also concerned that foreign nuclear materials for which the 
U.S. has no direct responsibility are being transported to the 
U.S. without consideration of the full costs of management, 
storage, and eventual disposition. As requested, the 
recommendation includes $21,000,000 for material removal from 
high-income nations due to the unique security concerns 
associated with these particular materials. However, the NNSA 
is directed to offset the costs of removing these materials 
from prior-year balances of lower priority activities. The 
Committee cautions the NNSA in requesting funding for 
additional material removals without better accounting for the 
full costs of managing these materials and identifying a 
disposal path.
    Nonproliferation and Arms Control.--The Committee 
recommends $130,203,000 for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, 
$3,500,000 above the budget request. Additional funding above 
the budget request is provided to expedite processing of export 
applications. The current slow process for approving Part 810 
specific authorization applications puts U.S. firms at a 
competitive disadvantage to nuclear exporters from other 
countries, diminishes U.S. influence on nuclear safety, 
security, and nonproliferation practices, and ultimately costs 
American jobs. Not later than 90 days after the enactment of 
this Act, the NNSA shall provide to the Committees on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report on its Part 
810 Process Improvement Program that details its strategy for 
driving efficiencies within the U.S. interagency process for 
approving Part 810 specific authorizations. The report shall 
identify a goal for the timeframe in which a typical Part 810 
specific authorization is processed, shall outline the 
implementation schedule for the Process Improvement Program, 
shall identify a funding plan to successfully implement the 
Process Improvement Program, shall include relevant data on the 
average timeframes achieved for Part 810 specific 
authorizations during each of the past five years, and shall 
identify metrics that can be used to determine whether the 
program is achieving meaningful progress in reducing specific 
authorization processing times.
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and 
Development.--The Committee recommends $419,333,000 for Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development, $25,932,000 
above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. The 
Committee supports maintaining a vigorous research and 
development base at the national laboratories to further U.S. 
nonproliferation objectives.
    Nonproliferation Construction.--The Committee recommends 
$345,000,000 for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility 
project, the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request. 
The recommendation provides sufficient funding to sustain the 
current pace of construction on the MOX facility in fiscal year 
2016 and includes a provision that prohibits the use of MOX 
funding to place the project in cold standby. The Department 
has conducted further analysis of the comparative costs of the 
MOX and downblending alternatives to dispose of surplus U.S. 
plutonium. While the costs of constructing the MOX facility 
appear to be conservatively estimated, that analysis does not 
provide a full accounting of the lifecycle costs for the 
alternative option to downblend and dispose of the material at 
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) or another disposal 
facility. For instance, the Department's analysis does not 
account for the costs of operating and emplacing waste in WIPP 
for another twenty years beyond its current closure date of 
2030. In addition, the Department estimates that, if 
authorized, the Department would need significant funding above 
the budget request to cancel the MOX project and pursue the 
downblending alternative in fiscal year 2016. Considering the 
high near term costs of either option, more accurate 
information on the full costs of the downblending option must 
be developed before such an alternative should be pursued. The 
Department is directed to conduct a comprehensive programmatic 
analysis of the full costs of downblending and disposing 
surplus U.S. plutonium at WIPP or another disposal facility and 
to provide a report on its findings to the Committees on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not less than 18 
months after the enactment of this Act. If the MOX program 
should be continued, the Committee encourages exploring options 
for cost-sharing with other responsible international partners.

             NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM AND INCIDENT RESPONSE

    The NNSA's Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response 
programs respond to and mitigate nuclear and radiological 
incidents worldwide in order to defend the nation from the 
threat of nuclear terrorism. These activities were funded 
within Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response and 
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation within Weapons 
Activities in fiscal year 2015. The Committee recommendation 
supports the request to align all NNSA funding to prevent, 
counter, and respond to nuclear proliferation and terrorism in 
one appropriation. The Committee recommends $234,390,000, 
$10,357,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget 
request.

                       LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS

    The Committee provides $94,617,000 for payments into the 
legacy University of California contractor employee defined 
benefit pension plans, $8,292,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
the same as the budget request.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    Rescissions.--The Committee rescinds $10,394,000 in 
unobligated prior-year balances that the Department reports 
will remain unobligated in fiscal year 2015 apportionment 
restrictions related to NNSA prior-year pensions funding.
    Use of prior-year balances.--The Committee directs the use 
of $18,076,000 in prior-year balances to offset the fiscal year 
2016 needs, as requested. The Committee further directs the use 
of an additional $21,000,000 in prior-year balances to offset 
the costs of the removal of nuclear materials from high-income 
nations.

                             Naval Reactors


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................    $1,234,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................     1,375,496,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................     1,320,394,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +86,394,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       -55,102,000
 

    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's recommendation for Naval 
Reactors is $1,320,394,000, $86,394,000 above fiscal year 2015 
and $55,102,000 below the budget request. The Committee's 
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.
    Ohio-Replacement Reactor Systems Development.--The 
Committee recommends $186,800,000, $30,700,000 above fiscal 
year 2015 and the same as the budget request.
    S8G Prototype Refueling.--The Committee recommends 
$133,000,000, $6,600,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as 
the budget request.
    NR Development.--The Committee recommends $414,642,000, 
$3,462,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $29,758,000 below the 
budget request.
    Advanced Test Reactor.--Within the amounts for NR 
Development, $71,200,000 is provided for the Advanced Test 
Reactor (ATR) at Idaho National Laboratory. Ensuring continued 
safe operation of ATR is a high priority for the Committee. 
Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear Energy are working 
together to identify upgrades that are needed to ensure the 
safe and reliable operation of ATR until at least 2050. 
However, the Committee is concerned that the period of time 
that has passed since these planning activities were first 
initiated is resulting in an extended schedule for completion. 
Continued delays will only serve to increase costs and risks. 
The Committee directs Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear 
Energy to expedite resolution of any remaining issues and to 
provide an update of progress as soon as possible.
    Advanced Fuel Systems.--Naval Reactors is directed to 
develop and provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both 
Houses of Congress an outline of a conceptual research and 
development program for an advanced fuel system that could use 
low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. Successful development of an 
LEU advanced fuel system could address several national-
security concerns, including the continued supply of highly 
enriched uranium (HEU) dedicated for naval fuel that the 
Department of Energy says is sufficient until 2064. Potential 
conversion to LEU fuel in future generations of U.S. nuclear 
naval vessels could also reduce global risks of nuclear 
proliferation and nuclear terrorism by helping promote 
worldwide HEU minimization, a longstanding U.S. 
nonproliferation policy objective. The report should describe 
the goals, timeline, and annual budget requirements, including 
fuel fabrication and test irradiation requirements, for 
carrying out such a development program.
    NR Operations and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends 
$424,452,000, $34,452,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$20,744,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, no 
less than $138,670,000 is provided for Research Reactor 
Facility Operations and Maintenance.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $118,000,000, 
$4,680,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $3,100,000 below the 
budget request. No funding is provided 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 Department of Energy 
responsibility. Further, the Navy has alternative options 
available to meet its training needs that do not require new 
facility construction at Department of Energy facilities. If 
new construction at a Department of Energy site is preferred, 
NR is directed to seek out an appropriate investment 
arrangement with the Navy that will permit DOE facilities to be 
constructed to perform Navy missions on a reimbursable basis.
    Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project.--The 
Committee recommends $86,000,000, $16,000,000 above fiscal year 
2015 and the same as the budget request.

                     Federal Salaries and Expenses


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $370,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       402,654,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       388,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +18,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       -14,654,000
 

    The Federal Salaries and Expenses account 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 $388,000,000, $18,000,000 above 
fiscal year 2015 and $14,654,000 below the budget request.
    Corporate Project Management.--The Committee recommends 
$9,863,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,036,000 below 
the budget request. The NNSA should expedite establishing 
permanent federal capabilities for cost estimating and project 
management instead of relying on support service contracts to 
conduct its project oversight.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES


                     Defense Environmental Cleanup


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................    $5,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................     5,055,550,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................     5,055,550,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +55,550,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    The Defense Environmental Cleanup account provides funding 
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 
$5,055,550,000, $55,550,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same 
as the budget request. Within the amounts provided, the 
Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training 
at $10,000,000.
    The Committee encourages the Department to move forward 
with plans to establish the Manhattan Project National Park as 
outlined in Section 3039 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act of 2015.
    Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $922,711,000 for 
the Richland site office, $18,289,000 below fiscal year 2015 
and $78,874,000 above the budget request. The Department has 
made considerable progress cleaning up the River Corridor and 
reducing the overall footprint at Hanford. While the budget 
request proposes to reduce funds for Richland, the Committee is 
concerned that the Department's strategy represents a change in 
the cleanup plans that have not been fully explained to 
stakeholders and that delays indefinitely the completion of 
some high hazard projects. Not later than 90 days after the 
enactment of this Act, the Department shall report to the 
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on its 
plans for the Hanford site that clearly delineates goals and 
milestones over the next five years and that explains any 
deviations from agreements or other commitments previously made 
to the state and other stakeholders.
    For the Office of River Protection, the Committee 
recommends $1,268,000,000, $56,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 
and $146,000,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, 
$578,000,000 is provided for Tank Farm Activities, $56,000,000 
above fiscal year 2015 and $71,000,000 below the budget 
request. The recommendation includes $41,000,000 for vapor 
implementation activities and $52,000,000 to meet milestones 
for single shell tank retrievals and installation of rainwater 
barriers. The recommendation defers funding for modifications 
needed for direct feed of the Waste Treatment Plant until the 
Department has provided more clarity on its multi-year cost and 
schedule plans.
    Waste Treatment Plant.--The recommendation provides 
$690,000,000 for construction of the Waste Treatment Plant 
(WTP) within three reprogramming controls for Subprojects A-D, 
the Pretreatment Facility, and the Low Activity Waste 
Pretreatment System project, a new facility that is part of the 
direct feed modifications to the WTP. Though the Department has 
made progress in resolving the WTP's design problems through 
its proposal for direct feed, the Committee is concerned that 
the Department still does not have an overarching programmatic 
strategy to deliver the WTP, does not have a project baseline 
that is aligned with the contract structure, and has limited 
ability to monitor project performance because the contractor 
is no longer reporting earned value management system data 
against a resource-loaded schedule. The Committee does not 
support increasing the overall annual amount of funding for WTP 
construction until the Department has provided the Committee 
with a cost estimate to begin processing liquid waste and a 
clear schedule to accomplish that goal. In addition, the 
Department must account for its maintenance and operating costs 
and continued design and testing activities that are needed for 
the portions of the project that are delayed due to unresolved 
safety-related design issues. The Committee supports continued 
flat funding for the period of time that the Department needs 
to better refine its cost and schedule plans and provide those 
details to the Congress.
    Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends 
$390,783,000, $10,580,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$30,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee is 
concerned that the budget request relies on a highly optimistic 
schedule for processing waste through the Integrated Waste 
Treatment Unit and is inadequate to support full tank waste 
processing operations through fiscal year 2016. While the 
Committee supports the Department's decision to undertake a 
safe and careful approach to starting the facility, timely 
startup remains a high priority. The recommendation includes an 
additional $30,000,000 above the budget request to maintain 
funding for radioactive liquid tank waste disposition slightly 
below the fiscal year 2015 level while meeting other cleanup 
funding needs at the site.
    NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $246,251,000, 
$12,367,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $8,625,000 below the 
budget request. The recommendation makes use of high prior-year 
carryover that is a result of a halt in transuranic waste 
operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee 
encourages the Department to expeditiously implement its new 
contract and federal oversight strategies to prevent further 
delays in coming to agreement on a cleanup plan for the 
laboratory.
    Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends 
$197,953,000, $25,097,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$20,600,000 above the budget request.
    U-233 Disposition Program.--The Committee recommends 
$35,895,000, $35,895,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $9,000,000 
above the budget request. The Committee remains concerned about 
the safety and security of legacy materials in Building 3019, 
an aging facility in the heart of the science campus. Progress 
on dispositioning canisters is stalled and the Department has 
failed to provide the Committee-directed report on its five-
year programmatic plans in a timely manner. These multi-year 
plans are essential to demonstrating that the Department has 
prioritized reducing these risks appropriately. The Department 
should expedite building improvements needed to process these 
materials as it continues to negotiate plans for direct 
disposal.
    High-Risk Excess Facilities.--The Committee is concerned 
about the status of high-risk excess facilities at the Y-12 
National Security Complex. In January 2015, the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) provided a facility 
disposition report that was directed by the Committee in fiscal 
year 2012 that identified the NNSA's top-10 high risk 
facilities. The report indicated that at the top of that list 
are three 1940's-era facilities located at the Y-12 National 
Security Complex. The NNSA also reported that while NNSA and EM 
are working together to monitor the risks, there is no planned 
disposition date for the Y-12 facilities. EM has included these 
facilities in its Integrated Facilities Disposition Project 
(IFDP), but there is no visibility into how the IFDP is being 
managed and the project is not being conducted in accordance 
with DOE Order 413.3B. Not later than 180 days after the 
enactment of this Act, the Department shall provide to the 
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a 
report that details the programmatic and project management 
strategy for the IFDP, its multi-year cost and schedule 
planning projections, and the options available for mercury 
remediation and waste disposal. The recommendation for Oak 
Ridge Nuclear Facilities D&D; includes $3,000,000 above the 
budget request to accomplish these accelerated planning 
activities.
    Mercury Treatment Facility.--The Committee recommends 
$9,400,000 for the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility, the 
same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,600,000 above the budget 
request. Completion of this facility is necessary before major 
decommissioning progress can be made at Y-12 in order to 
mitigate the potential for additional mercury releases during 
demolition. The project is estimated to cost up to $370,000,000 
and reducing funding in fiscal year 2016 would lead to further 
delays and higher costs. The Committee expects the Department 
to provide an update on its project plans once it awards 
critical decision-1.
    Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends 
$1,191,543,000, $70,236,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
$16,878,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, an 
increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request is provided for 
Risk Management Operations to support the disposition of spent 
fuel from the High Flux Isotope Reactor.
    Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF).--The Committee 
recommends $194,000,000, $59,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
the same as the budget request. The SWPF represents the 
critical path for meeting the Department's long-term cleanup 
commitments at the site and therefore remains the Committee's 
highest priority at Savannah River. The Committee is encouraged 
by the revision of the performance baseline for the project, 
which will provide the Department with the management tools it 
needs to monitor project performance. While the Committee does 
not endorse nor oppose the particular contracting strategy the 
Department pursued in its re-baseline negotiations, the 
Committee remains concerned that the Department was 
unsuccessful in its efforts to come to an agreement on a 
revised contract structure that might have reduced the risk of 
further cost growth and schedule slippage, considering the past 
problems experienced with keeping the project on track under 
the current contract. In the past, the Department has been 
reluctant to fully enforce the requirements of its contracts 
and has been slow to realize and react to challenges that might 
have an impact on project performance. Without a revised 
contract structure, the importance of the Department's federal 
managers to utilize current authorities and enforce existing 
contract requirements becomes more pronounced. The Committee 
will continue to closely monitor progress of the project and 
hold the Department accountable for delivering the project on 
schedule and within budget.
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).--The Committee 
recommends $285,857,000, $34,143,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 
$42,539,000 above the budget request. While the Department has 
put together an aggressive plan for resuming waste emplacement 
operations at WIPP, the Committee is concerned that base 
funding is severely reduced in the budget request. Safely 
returning WIPP to full operations is one of the highest 
priorities for the Committee in the bill. Inadequately funding 
base operations and maintenance, as well as the transuranic 
waste operations at the generator sites within the Central 
Characterization Project, ultimately undermines the 
Department's ability to address the root causes of the two 
incidents leading to the shutdown and to meet its transuranic 
waste commitments at other sites.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
recommends $14,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and 
$510,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, 
$2,000,000 is provided for the National Spent Fuel Program at 
Idaho National Laboratory.

                       Defense Uranium Enrichment


                  Decontamination and Decommissioning


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $463,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       471,797,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       471,797,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +8,797,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    This account provides for a federal defense contribution 
into the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund. The Committee recommendation is $471,797,000, $8,797,000 
above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. The 
Committee recommendation does not include authorization of a 
legislative proposal to reinstate a tax on nuclear utilities.

                        Other Defense Activities


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $754,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       774,425,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       767,570,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +13,570,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................        -6,855,000
 

    The Other Defense Activities account provides funding for 
the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security; the 
Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments; the Office of 
Legacy Management; Specialized Security Activities; Defense 
Related Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals. The Committee recommendation for Other Defense 
Activities is $767,570,000, $13,570,000 above fiscal year 2015 
and $6,855,000 below the budget request.
    Environment, Health, Safety and Security.--The Committee 
recommends $183,798,000, $2,800,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
the same as the budget request.
    Independent Enterprise Assessments.--The Committee 
recommends $73,534,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and the 
budget request. 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 continue to provide an annual report 
of its oversight activities, findings, and recommendations for 
the previous fiscal year.
    Graded Security Posture.--Not later than 90 days after the 
enactment of this Act, the Department shall provide to the 
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a 
report that outlines a schedule to update its Graded Security 
Posture to meet the latest threats. The Department has not yet 
demonstrated it has implemented the organizational reforms that 
are needed to provide effective security of special nuclear 
materials. In particular, the Committee is awaiting the results 
of a directed investigation of the need for structural reforms 
for providing security for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration sites. Reforming security practices continues to 
be a high priority for the Committee.
    Specialized Security Activities.--The Committee recommends 
$215,000,000, $11,848,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,855,000 
below the budget request. Within this amount, $2,000,000 is 
provided for innovative dynamic threat assessments at Idaho 
National Laboratory.
    Legacy Management.--The Office of Legacy Management 
provides long-term stewardship following site closure. The 
Committee recommends $167,180,000, $4,800,000 below fiscal year 
2015 and the same as the budget request. The Committee supports 
the Office of Legacy's Managements 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 $122,558,000, $3,722,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 
the same as 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, the 
same as fiscal year 2015 and 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

    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 Shoshone Paiute Trout Hatchery, the Spokane Tribal 
Hatchery, and the Snake River Sockeye Weirs.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration


 
 
 
Budget estimate, 2016.................................            $- - -
Appropriation, 2015...................................             - - -
Recommended, 2016.....................................             - - -
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 2016 is 
$90,500,000, with $83,600,000 for purchase power and wheeling 
and $6,900,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $66,500,000, 
and annual expenses will be offset by collections of 
$6,900,000. Additionally, SEPA has identified $17,100,000 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, 2015...................................       $11,400,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        11,400,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        11,400,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 2016 is $136,223,000, including $19,279,000 for 
operation and maintenance expenses, $73,000,000 for purchase 
power and wheeling, $31,932,000 for program direction, and 
$12,012,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total 
$98,961,000, including $6,023,000 for operations and 
maintenance, $63,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and 
$29,938,000 for program direction. Southwestern estimates it 
will secure alternative financing from customers in the amount 
of $25,862,000.

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


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $93,372,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        93,372,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        93,372,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 2016 is recommended at $941,600,000, which includes 
$58,374,000 for construction and rehabilitation, $80,901,000 
for system operation and maintenance, $565,927,000 for purchase 
power and wheeling, and $236,398,000 for program direction. 
Offsetting collections include $567,155,000 for purchase power 
and wheeling and annual expenses, and the use of $7,344,000 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 
$273,729,000.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................          $228,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................           228,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................           228,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 2016 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 $4,950,000, with $4,262,000 of offsetting collections 
applied toward annual expenses and $460,000 of alternative 
financing.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $304,389,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       319,800,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       319,800,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +15,411,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

                                REVENUES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................     $-304,389,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................      -319,800,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................      -319,800,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       -15,411,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $319,800,000, the same as the 
budget request. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate 
equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation 
of $0.
    The Committee 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.

                        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 continues a provision that prohibits the use of 
funds in this title for capital construction of high hazard 
nuclear facilities, unless certain independent oversight is 
conducted, 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 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 continues a provision restricting certain 
activities in the Russian Federation.
    The bill modifies a provision regarding management of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
    The bill includes a provision that permits the 
reprogramming of funds.
    The bill includes a provision rescinding unobligated 
balances.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                    Appalachian Regional Commission


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        95,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        95,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +5,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 $95,000,000, 
$5,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as 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.
    Within available funds, the Committee directs $15,000,000 
for activities in support of the POWER+ Plan.
    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, 2015...................................       $28,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        29,150,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        29,900,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +1,400,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................          +750,000
 

    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 2016 is $29,900,000, $1,400,000 
above fiscal year 2015 and $750,000 above the budget request.
    In addition to its statutory responsibilities for providing 
independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of 
Energy, the DNFSB plays a vital role in ensuring that issues of 
public health and safety at the Department of Energy's defense 
nuclear facilities are disclosed to the Congress and the 
public. The DNFSB remains a small organization with only 
limited resources to investigate all potential matters of 
concern. In recent years, the DNFSB has ramped up work for 
reviewing new nuclear facility construction. The Committee 
commends the DNFSB for performing its reviews early on in the 
design process, a practice that will reduce costs.
    The recommendation includes funding above the budget 
request so that the DNFSB may conduct a comprehensive 
evaluation of the radioactive liquid waste tank and processing 
infrastructure and the tank maintenance and operating programs 
at Hanford and Savannah River to identify any safety issues 
that must be resolved to support extended operations. The 
Committee is concerned about the status of those systems in 
light of the indefinite delays in completing construction of 
the Waste Treatment Plant at Hanford and the new missions under 
consideration at Savannah River that will involve processing 
nuclear materials for an extended time. The Department of 
Energy has provided few details on its plans and strategies to 
safely operate those systems beyond the timeframes previously 
planned. The DNFSB is directed to provide a report on its 
findings and recommendations to the Committees on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 360 
days after the enactment of this Act.

                        Delta Regional Authority


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        14,936,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        12,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................        -2,936,000
 

    The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state 
partnership established by the Delta Regional Authority Act of 
2000 (Public Law 106-554) that serves a 252-county/parish area 
in an eight-state region near the mouth of the Mississippi 
River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each 
participating state, the DRA is designed to remedy severe and 
chronic economic distress by stimulating economic development 
and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on 
the region's economy. The DRA seeks to help local communities 
leverage other federal and state programs, which are focused on 
basic infrastructure development, transportation improvements, 
business development, and job training services. Under federal 
law, at least 75 percent of appropriated funds must be invested 
in distressed counties and parishes, with 50 percent of the 
funds earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure 
improvements.
    For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends $12,000,000, 
the same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,936,000 below the budget 
request.

                           Denali Commission


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        10,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        10,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 
2016, the Committee recommends $10,000,000, the same as fiscal 
year 2015 and the budget request.

                  Northern Border Regional Commission


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................        $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................         5,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................         3,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        -2,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................        -2,000,000
 

    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 2016, $2,000,000 below 
fiscal year 2015 and the budget request.

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................          $250,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................             - - -
Recommended, 2016.....................................           250,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................          +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 2016, the same as fiscal year 2015 
and $250,000 above the budget request.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................    $1,003,233,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................     1,020,119,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................     1,003,233,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................                 0
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       -16,886,000
 

                                REVENUES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................     $-885,375,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................      -899,971,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................      -862,274,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +23,101,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       +37,697,000
 

                           NET APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $117,858,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       120,148,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       140,959,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................       +23,101,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................       +20,811,000
 

    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2016 is 
$1,003,233,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and $16,886,000 
below the budget request. The total amount of budget authority 
is offset by estimated revenues of $862,274,000. Including 
revenues, the net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission is $140,959,000.
    The recommendation does not support the increase for 
salaries and expenses proposed in the budget request. The 
Committee directed the use of anticipated carryover balances in 
fiscal year 2015 as the first step in returning the NRC to a 
budget that is more aligned with current regulatory and 
licensing needs. The fiscal year 2016 recommendation 
accelerates the ``right-sizing'' proposed by the Project AIM 
report and provides $25,000,000 for the adjudication of the 
Yucca Mountain license application. The Committee directs that 
NRC apply any reduction in available resources to corporate 
support.
    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 benefit 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 recommendation directs $25,000,000 to continue 
adjudication of the Yucca Mountain license application. The 
Committee reiterates that the Administration's refusal to move 
forward with the Yucca Mountain license application ignores 
current law and does not advance the Nation's need for a 
permanent repository. The recommendation continues language 
prohibiting the Chairman of the NRC from terminating any 
program, project, or activity without the approval of a 
majority of the Commissioners. The NRC is directed to report to 
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, 
not later than January 5, 2017, on the plan to complete the 
license application and additional funding needs as necessary. 
In addition, the recommendation requires the NRC to notify and 
report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
Congress on the use of emergency functions.
    NRC Right-Sizing.--The Committee is aware that the 
Commission is in the process of reviewing the recommendations 
of the both the Project AIM report and the independent review 
of corporate support directed by Congress. The Committee urges 
the Commission to seek the input of key stakeholders in order 
to ensure that the NRC is structured in a way that ensures 
safety, is well-defined, reasonable, and able to adapt to 
changing realities, particularly the demands of emerging 
technologies and license application. The Committee directs the 
Commission to accelerate the schedule for the recommendations 
addressing planning and budgeting, to include any actions 
proposed to reduce the cost of corporate support. The NRC will 
report quarterly in fiscal year 2016 to the Committees on 
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on all approved 
recommendations and the implementation actions undertaken.
    Rulemaking.--The Committee directs the Commission to 
reestablish the pre-2006 rulemaking process. The Commission's 
decision to streamline the rulemaking process in fiscal year 
2006 advances rulemaking farther than is appropriate prior to 
obtaining a decision from the Commission. The lack of early 
Commission engagement causes unnecessary expenditure of 
resources and limits the Commission's ability to prioritize 
rulemaking activities, identify the cumulative effect of 
regulations, and evaluate the impact on licensees. In 
particular, the Commission should not waive the development and 
submission of rulemaking plans, the review by the Committee to 
Review Generic Requirements, and the review by the Advisory 
Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Additionally, the Commission 
should not delegate Commission rulemaking responsibilities to 
NRC staff. The Committee directs the NRC to report on the 
actions taken to restore rulemaking discipline by January 5, 
2016. The Committee further directs the NRC to list all 
rulemaking activities planned, to include their priority and 
schedule, in the annual budget request and the semi-annual 
report to Congress on licensing and regulatory activities.
    Budget Justifications.--The Committee directs that future 
budget justifications provide the following: previous fiscal 
year data based on the enacted level for that fiscal year not 
the level proposed in the previous year's budget request; 
carryover balances spent in previous fiscal years and estimates 
for the current year.
    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.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................       $12,071,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................        12,136,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................        12,136,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................           +65,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

                                REVENUES

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................      $-10,099,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................       -10,060,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................       -10,060,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................           +39,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

                           NET APPROPRIATION

 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................        $1,972,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................         2,076,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................         2,076,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................          +104,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    The Committee recommends $12,136,000, $65,000 above fiscal 
year 2015 and the same as the budget request. Given the formula 
for fee recovery, the revenue estimate is $10,060,000, 
resulting in a net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission Inspector General of $2,076,000.
    The Committee has included $958,000 within this 
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, 2015...................................        $3,400,000
Budget estimate, 2016.................................         3,600,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................         3,600,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................          +200,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 $3,600,000 for the NWTRB.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects


 
 
 
Appropriation, 2015...................................            $- - -
Budget estimate, 2016.................................         1,000,000
Recommended, 2016.....................................         1,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2015...............................        +1,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2016.............................             - - -
 

    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 Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Office of the 
Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
Projects, $1,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the 
budget request.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    The bill continues a provision requiring the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to fully comply with Congressional 
requests for information.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    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 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 the 
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 that prohibits the use of 
funds to further implementation of components of the National 
Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order 13547.
    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'', $22,000 is available 
for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
$5,899,000 is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado 
River Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary 
may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of 
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall 
appropriation under the heading.
    Under ``California Bay Delta Restoration'', such sums as 
may be necessary to carry out authorized purposes may be 
transferred to appropriate accounts of other participating 
federal agencies.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Under section 302, ``General Provisions--Department of 
Energy'', unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided 
for activities in this Act may be transferred to appropriation 
accounts for such activities established pursuant to this 
title. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the 
applicable established accounts and thereafter may be accounted 
for as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.

   Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressionally Directed Spending Items

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

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

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

                      TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and 
specifications of projects prior to construction.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Construction, stating that funds can be used for the 
construction of river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 
related projects authorized by law, and for detailed studies 
and plans and specifications of such projects.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
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, 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 104, prohibiting certain actions 
related to the definition of fill material or discharge of fill 
material for purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 105, 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 106, prohibiting requirement of a 
permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material under the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act for certain activities.
    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.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, section 108, regarding certain dredged 
material disposal activities.

                  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, 
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.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Department of the Interior, section 203, regarding completion 
of certain feasibility studies.

                    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 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 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 offsetting 
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 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 offset 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 offset 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 Federal Salaries and 
Expenses 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 offsetting 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 offsetting 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 offsetting 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 offsetting 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 offsetting 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 offsetting 
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 offsetting 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 2016 until enactment of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
    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, 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 307, prohibiting nonproliferation 
activities in the Russian Federation until certain reporting 
requirements are met.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 308, prohibiting funds for certain 
activities related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without 
prior notification to the Congress and limiting the authority 
of the Secretary of Energy to establish regional petroleum 
product reserves.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, section 310, rescinding certain funds that 
were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding.

                     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, United States Code, without regard to section 15751(b).
    Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for salaries 
and other support costs for the Office of the Commission, to be 
controlled by majority vote of the Commission.
    Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for official 
representation expenses and permits the use of revenues from 
licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for 
salaries and expenses to reduce the appropriation as revenues 
are received. Funding is provided to support university 
research and development, and for a Nuclear Science and 
Engineering Grant Program.
    Language has been included under Office of Inspector 
General that provides for the use of revenues from licensing 
fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and 
expenses, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United 
States Code, to reduce the appropriation as revenues are 
received.
    Language has been included under Office of the Federal 
Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects 
making funds received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law 
110-140 in excess of the amount specified unavailable for 
obligation until appropriated.
    Language has been included under Independent Agencies, 
General Provisions, section 401, 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 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 503, prohibiting funds in contravention of Executive 
Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental 
justice.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
section 504, 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 505, prohibiting the use of funds to further 
implementation of components of the National Ocean Policy 
developed under Executive Order 13547.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
section 506, 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:


                              Rescissions

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

        Department or Activity                                    Amount

Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy..16,677,000
Department of Energy: Science................................. 4,717,000
Department of Energy: Nuclear Energy.......................... 1,665,000
Department of Energy: Fossil Energy Research and Development..12,064,000
Department of Energy: Electricity Delivery and Energy 
    Reliability...............................................   900,000
Department of Energy: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........10,394,000
Department of Energy: Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation 
    and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration........ 4,832,000

                 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 Authority       Outlays        Budget Authority       Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory...........................               n.a.               n.a.                  0               \1\0
Discretionary.......................             35,403             36,186             35,403             36,182
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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:
    2016.............................................          \1\20,605
    2017.............................................             10,115
    2018.............................................              3,461
    2019.............................................                770
    2020 and future years............................                395
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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........................................             108
Outlays.................................................           \1\22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.



            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF NITA LOWEY AND MARCY KAPTUR

    The President has requested a robust increase for this bill 
in Fiscal Year 2016, calling on Congress to provide the 
critical investments necessary to accelerate and sustain 
economic growth. His overall budget calls for investments in 
research, education, training, and infrastructure--all vitally 
important and all interconnected.
    The President has also called for the end of the mindless 
austerity of sequestration, urging this Congress to replace it 
with more targeted spending cuts, program integrity measures, 
and the closure of some outdated tax loopholes. The effects of 
sequestration were immense, and are still being felt. Critical 
training was postponed; investments were put-off; and research 
abruptly halted. It was a worst-case scenario that never should 
have happened and absolutely should never be repeated.
    Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
differences with the President on how we get there, but the art 
of compromise must be achieved again. Even the Republican 
Budget Resolution acknowledges the need for relief from 
sequestration, though it does so by using creative accounting 
and merely aspirational language.
    While the Murray-Ryan plan was not perfect, another similar 
budget deal is essential for FY16 and beyond. Without such an 
agreement this year, our appropriations process is deeply 
imperiled. The sequester-level caps also would put 
discretionary funding at its lowest level, adjusted for 
inflation, since 2006. We must again act to ensure reasonable 
allocations for the important programs and investments funded 
through the appropriations process.
    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 $35,403,000,000, a 
decrease of $633,063,000 from the Administration's budget 
request and $1,201,000,000 above the 2015 level. The defense 
allocation is $1,040,000,000 above 2015, while the non-defense 
allocation is $161,000,000 above 2015. Within the constraints 
placed on the committee by the overall budget number, the 
allocation reflects a microcosm of the larger budget question 
on the appropriate balance between defense and non-defense 
activities.
    We commend the Chairman for increasing Corps of Engineers 
funding by $864,750,000 above the President's inadequate 
request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will continue. The 
bill also provides approximately $1,178,000,000 for projects 
funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, approximately 
$73,000,000 above 2015. 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, we must begin adapting to changing 
conditions in the natural environment. 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. 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 even 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. 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 $29,000,000 above and equal 
to the level of funding provided in 2015 respectively. 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 once again skewed too heavily toward fossil fuels. 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, yet further investment can drive 
down the costs of existing technology and provide breakthroughs 
in others. Investment in portfolio diversity remains necessary 
for the long term, particularly given the rapidly shifting 
energy outlook. The dramatic production increases in U.S. 
natural gas were enabled, in part, by technology developed by 
the Department of Energy. This expansion in production has 
resulted in a transformation of the nation's energy exports 
impossible to foresee when the actual research and development 
investments were made in horizontal drilling technology. 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 energy technology and innovation 
arena 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. The bill includes $1,918,000,000 for these critical 
programs, approximately $53,000,000 above 2015 after accounting 
for the movement of the counterterrorism and incident response 
program from weapons. The bill correctly prioritizes this 
funding, particularly in light of the recent suspension of 
nonproliferation work within Russia and an increase in 
irresponsible states and transnational actors seeking to harm.
    The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has 
been plagued by breathtaking cost overruns and schedule delays, 
and the Chairman continues the strong oversight of the NNSA. 
While we understand the need to modernize a complex built 
substantially in the 1950's, we continue to question whether 
the organization has the necessary tools and processes to 
continue to manage large increases to these activities year 
after year.
    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. While 
this was driven by a low defense allocation and budget request, 
the bill includes insufficient funding to meet commitments to 
the states and localities who provided so much when called 
upon.
    While the funding levels of the bill would be a basis for 
negotiation, 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. 
We should not have to remind our Majority colleagues that 
similar provisions have imperiled passage of this bill in the 
past. This Administration has already been on record with veto 
threats over nearly identical language.
    Most concerning is the inclusion of four water riders 
which, taken together, risk protection of the world's most 
precious resource: water. The first Clean Water Act provision 
prevents the Corps of Engineers from taking steps to clarify 
which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, and keeps 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. Finally, 
the bill includes provisions regarding agricultural exem ptions 
to the Clean Water Act and a prohibition of activities related 
to the National Ocean Policy. Including these provisions is a 
disappointment and does a disservice in our work, particularly 
given the water challenges facing many parts of our country.
    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. We disagree 
with the notion that reasonable limits on where guns can be 
carried are an infringement upon the Second Amendment. 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 addresses many of 
the interests we have expressed. Under the current Republican 
Budget Resolution, the Energy and Water bill's allocation comes 
at the expense of critical investments in other Subcommittees. 
It is our firm hope that the Committee will be provided a 
sensible overall budget level which will provide a path forward 
for all of the FY16 Appropriations bills. We look forward to 
the day when allocations across all Subcommittees are returned 
to acceptable levels and to working with the Chairman and the 
members of this Committee to advance the process.

                                   Nita Lowey.
                                   Marcy Kaptur.