Senate Report 113-47 - ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2014

[Senate Report 113-47]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 101
113th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 113-47

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

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2014

_______

June 27, 2013.--Ordered to be printed

_______

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

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1245]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1245)
making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014,
and for other purposes, favorably thereon and recommends that
the bill do pass.

New obligational authority

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $34,835,288,000
Amount of 2013 appropriations\1\\2\..................... 38,687,316,000
Amount of 2014 budget estimate.......................... 34,972,807,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2013 appropriations................................. -3,852,028,000
2014 budget estimate................................ -137,519,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes emergency funding of $1,889,000,000 in the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-2).

CONTENTS

----------
Page

Purpose.......................................................... 4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations......................... 4
Title I:
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
General Investigations............................... 24
Construction, General................................ 34
Flood Control, Mississippi River, and Tributaries.... 41
Operation and Maintenance, General................... 43
Regulatory Program................................... 60
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program...... 61
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................ 62
General Expenses..................................... 62
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works)............................................. 63
General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........ 63
Title II:
Department of the Interior:
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources.......................... 66
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.............. 75
California Bay-Delta Restoration..................... 75
Central Utah Project Completion Account.................. 76
Policy and Administration............................ 76
Indian Water Rights Settlements...................... 77
San Joaquin Restoration Fund......................... 77
General Provisions--Department of the Interior........... 77
Title III:
Department of Energy:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy................... 80
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.............. 85
Nuclear Energy........................................... 86
Fossil Energy Research and Development................... 89
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves................... 90
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.............................. 90
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve....................... 90
Energy Information Administration........................ 90
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 91
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund................................................... 92
Science.................................................. 92
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy................ 96
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program............. 97
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.. 97
Departmental Administration.............................. 97
Office of the Inspector General.......................... 99
Weapons Activities....................................... 100
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation......................... 109
Naval Reactors........................................... 112
Office of the Administrator.............................. 113
Defense Environmental Cleanup............................ 114
Other Defense Activities................................. 116
Power Marketing Administrations:
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration..................................... 117
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration..................................... 117
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and
Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration..... 117
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund.... 117
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and
Expenses............................................... 118
General Provisions--Department of Energy................. 129
Title IV:
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.......................... 130
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................. 130
Delta Regional Authority................................. 130
Denali Commission........................................ 131
Northern Border Regional Commission...................... 131
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................ 131
Office of Inspector General.......................... 132
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board..................... 132
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects................................ 133
Title V: General Provisions...................................... 134
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 135
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 135
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 136
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 145
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 146

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
the fiscal year 2014 beginning October 1, 2013, and ending
September 30, 2014, for energy and water development, and for
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources
development programs and related activities of the Department
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the
Department of Energy's energy research activities, including
environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic
energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration in title III; and for related independent
agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional
Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The fiscal year 2014 budget estimates for the bill total
$34,972,807,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $34,835,288,000. This is
$137,519,000 above the budget estimates and $3,852,028,000
below the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

Subcommittee Hearings

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held
three sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2014
appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and
representatives of the Federal agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The recommendations for fiscal year 2014 therefore, have
been developed after careful consideration of available data.

Votes in the Committee

By a vote of 24 to 6 the Committee on June 27, 2013,
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the
Senate.

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is made up of
approximately 35,000 civilian and 650 military members that
perform both military and Civil Works functions. The military
and civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work
hand in hand as leaders in engineering and environmental
matters. The diverse workforce of biologists, engineers,
geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers, and other
professionals meets the demands of changing times and
requirements as a vital part of America's Army.
The Corps' mission is to provide quality, responsive
engineering services to the Nation including:
--Planning, designing, building, and operating water
resources and other Civil Works projects (Navigation,
Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster
Response, et cetera);
--Designing and managing the construction of military
facilities for the Army and Air Force (Military
Construction); and
--Providing design and construction management support for
other Defense and Federal agencies (Interagency and
International Services).
The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works
missions of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000
civilians and about 290 military officers are responsible for
this nationwide mission.
The Congress through specific authorizations and
appropriations has provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
major Federal responsibilities for supporting flood control
activities in communities across the Nation; providing
navigable channels on the Nation's waterways, ports and
harbors; and restoring aquatic ecosystems. The Corps also has
authorities to provide water supply, shore protection,
hydroelectric power, and to provide recreation opportunities at
Corps projects. The Corps is the Federal Government's largest
producer of hydropower, and is the number one Federal provider
of outdoor recreation. The Corps of Engineers also regulates
waters of the U.S. through their Regulatory program.
To meet its responsibilities for these various missions,
the Corps of Engineers has built incrementally what now
comprises an extensive water resources management
infrastructure that includes 694 dams, 12,700 miles of levees
in the Federal levee system, and 25,000 miles of deep draft and
inland navigation channels and control structures. This
infrastructure has been developed over nearly two centuries,
most of it on an individual project basis, within varying
contexts of system planning. Large portions of the Corps' water
resources infrastructure were built in the first half of the
20th century. Ecosystem restoration related to existing
projects, added as a primary missions area for the Corps in
1996, has been a focus of new construction over the last 10-15
years.
While the Corps Civil Works programs impact all 50 States
and virtually every citizen of our Nation, they are a
relatively minor part of the Federal budget. Funding for the
Corps comprises less than 0.13 percent of the total Federal
budget for fiscal year 2014.

OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Corps of
Engineers is composed of $4,826,000,000 in new budget
authority. This amount includes a rescission of $100,000,000 of
previously appropriated funds.
The tradition of this bill has been that virtually all
funding for the Corps of Engineers is designated to specific
studies/projects. The administration's budget request for
fiscal year 2014 continues this tradition. The four major
study/project accounts (General Investigations, Construction,
General, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation and
Maintenance) comprise $4,307,000,000 of the administration's
overall budget request of $4,826,000,000 for the Corps of
Engineers; $332,938,000 of the budget request in these four
accounts is considered as programmatic funding or national
programs. That is about 7.7 percent of the funding proposed in
these accounts. The remainder of the $3,974,062,000 proposed in
the four major accounts is divided among 919 individual line
item studies or projects proposed by the administration. As the
Corps of Engineers has no inherent programmatic authorities
under which the organization was created, all of these
individual studies, projects and programmatic authorities are
specifically authorized by Congress and specifically funded
through appropriations acts.
This Committee continues to believe that Members of
Congress are best positioned to know the unique needs of their
individual States and Congressional Districts. In past years,
Congress, exercising their prerogatives under the Constitution
would have added projects and studies to the administration's
request to ensure that the Nation's water resource needs were
met. As the four major study/project accounts in the Corps are
comprised of individual line items of studies or projects, the
Committee usually added line items for studies or projects that
were not included in the administration's budget request or,
alternatively, increased funding to items requested by the
administration to accelerate the project delivery process on
those items.
The line items that were added by Congress in previous
years were authorized and vetted in a public process identical
to those line items that the administration included in their
request. The difference between the items added by Congress and
those included by the administration is that the administration
applied a number of supplemental criterion for budgeting a
study or project that the authorizations for these studies or
projects does not require. In most cases, the criteria used for
budgeting was not specifically analyzed when a project was
studied prior to authorization. Establishment of budget
criteria was, and continues to be, an invention of the
administration. It should be understood that this criteria is
established not necessarily to meet the Nation's water resource
needs, but rather to help the administration decide which needs
they choose to include in their budget request. These are
choices made by the administration within the context of their
priorities. History has shown that this criteria is extremely
flexible depending on what an administration wants to fund in a
given year. This Committee does not believe that this budget
criteria, established by the administration without input from
the public or Congress, has any more validity than the criteria
that the Congress has used in the past to decide which projects
to fund.
Due to the vagaries of the administration's budget
criteria, the Congress has traditionally provided the
consistency in funding for items within the Corps of Engineers
budget. Corps of Engineers projects generally have two
definitive points where Congress can decide the Federal
commitment to a water resources development project. The first
point is when an item is being studied. By providing the
initial study funding, the Congress is making a tacit
commitment that it intends to see the study process through to
completion. By the same token when a project is authorized for
construction and receives its initial construction funding,
that is a commitment that the Congress intends to see the
project through to completion. That is why so few ``new''
studies and projects have been funded in recent years. Congress
has acknowledged the tight fiscal environment by not creating
tremendous outyear obligations for the Corps with new work.
Nearly all Corps studies and projects are cost shared. That
means a local sponsor has contractually agreed to provide a
proportionate non-Federal share (in most cases, ranging from 25
percent-50 percent) to match the Federal funds appropriated.
When these projects are not provided funding either through the
budget or an appropriations act, the work is deferred until
funding is appropriated. This inconsistent funding increases
project costs, defers the projects benefits to the national
economy and plays havoc with the non-Federal entities'
financing plans for projects and studies. Traditionally,
Congress has provided the consistency for studies and projects
undertaken by the Corps of Engineers through congressionally
directed spending by maintaining the commitments to local
sponsors and insuring consistent levels of funding for the
projects or studies that were initiated or funded in
appropriation acts.
Overall navigation funding is increased $135,000,000 in
this budget proposal compared to what the administration
proposed in fiscal year 2013. The Committee believes this is a
positive move by the administration. However, Flood Risk
Management is down $32,000,000 in this budget proposal when
compared to fiscal year 2013. The Committee is puzzled by this
cut, particularly after record setting floods on the Missouri
and Mississippi Rivers in 2011 and the impacts to the Atlantic
coast from Superstorm Sandy. While $5,350,000,000 in emergency
supplemental funding was provided in January 2013 to address
repairs to flood control infrastructure damaged by Superstorm
Sandy, that funding did not provide for all of the damages to
existing infrastructure from other natural disasters. The Corps
estimates a current backlog of $400,000,000 in damages due to
natural disasters that have yet to be appropriated or budgeted.
That means that these damaged projects will remain in their
potentially weakened condition. However, one would think that
flood control funding should have been increased in the budget
request to address the needs and weaknesses in existing flood
control infrastructure as well as the needs for new
infrastructure that the flooding and other natural disasters
revealed.
The General Investigations Program is proposed at
$90,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is a decrease of
$34,750,000 from the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before the
sequester and supplemental disaster appropriations. This
account funds the preauthorization studies necessary to
determine the Federal interests in a water resource problem or
need. The request provides funding for 72 studies for a total
of $39,297,000 of the request. Of that amount, two studies are
funded at $8,285,000. The other 70 studies are funded with the
remaining $31,012,000. Six ecosystem restoration, two deep-
draft navigation, one flood damaged reduction, and one
nationwide study are proposed as ``new study starts'' in the
request. Nineteen feasibility studies and two preconstruction
engineering and design studies are proposed for completion
within the amounts requested in the budget.
The Construction, General account is proposed at
$1,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. The 74 line items proposed
for the Construction, General account can be broken down as
follows:
--Dam safety activities $273,910,000 (20.3 percent);
--Environmental compliance activities comprise $189,696,000
(14.1 percent);
--Ecosystem or environmental restoration activities comprise
$198,718,000 (14.7 percent);
--Flood control and storm damage reduction activities
comprise $279,827,000 (20.7 percent);
--Coastal or deep draft navigation activities comprise
$100,299,000 (7.4 percent);
--Inland and shallow draft navigation activities comprise
$212,690,000 (15.8 percent); and
--An additional $94,860,000 is proposed for national programs
(7 percent).
This is a decrease of $320,652,000 from the fiscal year
2013 enacted amount for this account before the sequester and
supplemental disaster appropriations. This account funds
postauthorization studies and physical construction of
authorized projects. Dam safety assurance and aquatic ecosystem
restoration appear to have taken the biggest reductions when
compared to the fiscal year 2013 budget request. One large
ecosystem restoration project, one flood control/ecosystem
restoration project, one nonstructural flood control project,
and one deep draft navigation project are proposed as ``new
construction starts'' in the request. Five projects are
projected for completion within the amounts requested in the
budget.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries account is proposed
at $279,000,000. This account funds studies, construction and
operation and maintenance activities along the Mississippi
River and designated tributaries from Cape Giradeau, Missouri,
to the Gulf of Mexico. This is an increase of $27,504,000 from
the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before the sequester. The
increase is primarily due to the addition of two agricultural
water supply projects.
The Operation and Maintenance account is proposed at
$2,588,000,000. This is an increase of $180,824,000 from the
fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before the sequester and
supplemental disaster appropriations. This account funds post
authorization studies of operating projects, maintenance of
Federal facilities and Federal operation of facilities where
authorized by law. Recreation funding is proposed at
$252,000,000. At this same funding level in the fiscal year
2013 request, the Corps' budget estimated that 186 partial and
57 full recreation area closings would occur and reduced
recreational opportunities would occur at one-third of the
budgeted projects. Similar impacts would likely be expected to
occur at this funding level for fiscal year 2014. Navigation
funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] is
increased to an estimated $890,000,000 in the request. This is
a $42,000,000 increase over the fiscal year 2013 request.
The Regulatory Program is proposed at $200,000,000 for
fiscal year 2014. This is an increase of $7,386,000 over the
fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before the sequester. This
program provides the funding for the Corps nationwide
regulatory roles primarily under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] proposed at
$104,000,000 was cut by $4,782,000 from the fiscal year 2013
enacted amount before the sequester. This program was
transferred to the Corps from the Department of Energy, because
the Committee was concerned with management and cost issues of
the program within the Energy Department. This is a program
that is being well-managed by the Corps and should have stable,
adequate budget resources to continue these radiological clean-
up activities. This proposed decrease in funding will further
stretch out the clean-up of these sites.
The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is
proposed at $28,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is an
increase of $1,054,000 over the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount
before the sequester and supplemental disaster appropriations.
These funds are proposed for readiness and preparedness
activities for the Corps of Engineers.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) is proposed as a separate account for $5,000,000. This
is virtually the same as provided in fiscal year 2013. The
Committee continues to believe that the Assistant Secretary's
office should be funded in the Defense appropriations bill.
However, until such time as this account can be reintegrated
into that bill, the Committee agrees that the office should be
funded as a separate account. The Assistant Secretary's duties
encompass much more than the Civil Works functions of the Corps
of Engineers and the budget needs of the office should be
addressed separately.
The General Expenses [GE] account is proposed at
$182,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is a $2,630,000
decrease from the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before the
sequester and supplemental disaster appropriations. The
Committee notes that the Corps operates one of the most
efficient headquarters staffs in the National Capital region.
Only about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at headquarters as
opposed to 10 percent or more for comparable agencies in the
National Capital region.

THE NATION'S WATERWAY SYSTEM

The Nation's waterway system constructed, operated, and
maintained by the Corps is an incredibly versatile and
interconnected system providing vital linkages to other modes
of transportation as well as providing benefits to the national
economy of more than $7,000,000,000 through transportation
savings over other available modes of transportation. This
system has been developed over the past 200 years and is
showing its age. There are many lock chambers that are long
past their design life or that need to be enlarged to handle
increased traffic. Also, many harbor and channel projects need
to be deepened or enlarged to handle contemporary vessel sizes.
A major recapitalization of this infrastructure is needed,
particularly if the Nation is to meet the President's goal of
doubling exports in the next 5 years.
In 1986, two trust funds were set up to fund portions of
our navigation infrastructure. The HMTF provides for 100
percent of the maintenance of eligible navigation projects, and
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF] provides for one-half of
the construction cost of designated projects on the Nation's
inland waterways. Both of these funds are subject to
appropriation. The HMTF does a good job of collecting revenues,
but appropriations generally lag considerably behind the
collections so the fund balance continues to grow. The IWTF
appropriations match the revenue collection, but the revenues
collected are insufficient to undertake all of the needed work.
Therefore the fund balance is essentially zero.
Past investments have provided adequate, albeit in some
cases inefficient, infrastructure to deal with current
commodity and cargo movements. Only about 23 percent of the
administration's proposed construction budget is dedicated to
navigation projects. The budget request for the Corps for
improvements and maintenance of the waterway system falls
woefully short of the needs. Ports are routinely not dredged to
their full authorized dimensions.
The Committee is concerned that there are major changes in
worldwide shipping and trade occurring and on the horizon that
our Nation's water infrastructure is not equipped to handle.
One of these changes is the enlargement and deepening of the
Panama Canal that will allow a shift to larger container
vessels with a need for deeper ports and navigation channels.
However, larger vessels are also transiting the Suez Canal and
more and more will likely be attempting to call at the Nation's
ports. If larger ships are unable to dock here, they may be
forced to dock in other countries with the appropriate
infrastructure and then reconfigure ships and cargos to
accommodate U.S. water infrastructure, leading to increased
transportation costs, higher end-unit prices and loss of jobs.
Along with deeper channels to accommodate these larger
vessels, ports will need efficient dockside infrastructure to
handle the throughput of this increased trade. Intermodal
improvements at ports and possibly short sea shipping will also
be a part of trade movements in and among ports. Without this
system, transportation of commodities, exports and imports,
would become vastly more expensive. For more than 25 years, the
current mechanisms have been in place. However, how water
transportation infrastructure is planned, designed,
constructed, maintained, and funded has not kept pace with the
pace of change in worldwide trade.
Water transportation infrastructure was and continues to be
a linchpin of our national economy. It is time to determine if
there is a better way to develop this infrastructure. The
Committee believes it is important for the Congress to rethink
the Federal role in water transportation to determine if there
is a better way to plan, build and finance this critical
infrastructure. The Committee will work with the appropriate
authorizing and tax writing committees as well as industry and
the administration to determine a path forward to provide the
water transportation infrastructure that will be required for
the next 50-100 years.

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

The Committee remains concerned about the Nation's Inland
Waterways. This network of waterways moves nearly 600 million
tons of cargo annually or 16 percent of our domestic freight.
That is 600 million tons of cargo that are not moved on our
already overburdened rail and highway system.
The Inland Waterways System includes more than 12,000 miles
of waterways that serve 41 States, including all States east of
the Mississippi River. The Corps operates 238 lock chambers at
192 sites. Nearly 140 of these locks have been in operation
more than 50 years. This means that more than one-half of the
lock chambers that are vital parts of the Inland Waterways
System have exceeded the economic life of the projects.
These locks, with associated dam structures, along with
other waterway features provide other benefits for the Nation's
economy such as recreation, hydropower, water supply and in
some cases flood control. These other project benefits are a
direct result of the construction of these projects to fulfill
their navigation purpose.
These lock chambers are in various states of deterioration.
A properly funded maintenance program can stave off the
inevitable effects of this deterioration. However, it has been
a very long time since the Corps budget could be considered
adequate to properly fund maintenance of these structures.
Inevitably, these structures must be modernized or replaced,
depending on the deterioration, if they are to continue to
serve the purpose for which they were originally constructed.
Current law provides that maintenance of these structures
is funded from the general fund of the Treasury. This funding
is intended to cover routine maintenance of the structures that
maintain the functionality of the projects. Repairs are
becoming more frequent, extensive and costly. Scheduled and
unscheduled lock closures for maintenance purposes have almost
doubled in the last 10 years.
Whenever improvements to the functionality of the project
are considered for implementation they are generally cost
shared in the Construction, General account. These improvements
can include a major overhaul of the mechanisms that operate the
locks to improvements to the foundation or other major
structural elements to a complete replacement of an antiquated
lock facility. These major rehabilitations or new construction
are cost shared. Half comes from the General Treasury and half
comes from the IWTF.
The IWTF is funded through a 20-cent-per-gallon tax on fuel
used to transit the Inland Waterways System. This tax has
remained 20 cents-per-gallon since 1995. Just adjusting the tax
for inflation would make the fuel tax 30 cents per gallon to
provide equivalent revenues to what was produced by the tax in
1995. It is estimated that more than $340,000,000 has been lost
to the IWTF since 1996 because this tax has not been adjusted
for inflation.
However, it is clear that construction costs have risen
much faster than revenues available in the IWTF even if they
had been adjusted for inflation. Lengthening of project
construction schedules due to inadequate funding has caused
project costs to increase, but costs have also increased due to
other unknown factors.
The Olmsted lock and dam replacement project is a case in
point. This one lock and dam is intended to replace the
outdated Locks and Dams 52 and 53 on the lower Ohio River. The
project was authorized for construction in 1988 for a cost of
$775,000,000. Construction was initiated in 1992 and nearly
$1,700,000,000 has been appropriated towards construction since
that time. The twin 1,200-foot long lock chambers are complete
and the Tainter gate section of the dam is under construction.
The administration's budget request indicates that the cost
of this single large project will have to be increased to
$3,104,000,000, a $5,000,000 increase since the last estimate
reported to Congress in the fiscal year 2013 budget request.
Abandoning the Olmsted project is not a viable option
because Locks and Dams 52 and 53 still would have to be
replaced. Replacement costs of the two existing structures
could easily exceed $3,000,000,000 on top of the nearly
$1,700,000,000 that has been invested in completing the two
replacement lock chambers at Olmsted. This would be an even
more expensive option than completing the work on Olmsted. The
Corps should make every effort to expedite the construction
schedule for this project and reduce any future cost growth.
With all of the work needed to modernize our Inland
Waterways System, this funding situation for the inland
waterways is intolerable. To make the type of progress
necessary to modernize this system in a reasonable period of
time, a new financing model must be developed and implemented.
Simply increasing the fuel tax will not supply the necessary
revenues without a massive increase that would lead to
disruptions on the system. A new financing mechanism must be
considered, that not only provides the necessary revenues, but
has an inflation adjustment factor built into the financing
system.
The HMTF tax offers an instructive model to consider for
the IWTF. This tax is based on the value of the imports that
transit specific harbors and waterways. The fees are collected
by the customs department and deposited into the HMTF to be
utilized for the maintenance of these waterways. This tax
burden is shared by all who utilize these imported items,
whereas the Inland Waterways Tax is only contributed based on
the tax collected from the fuel used by vessels transporting
cargo on the Inland Waterways System.
It should be noted that the model used for the HMTF
provided the bulk of all Federal revenue from 1790 until the
eve of World War I, financing most Government operations. This
seems an inherently fair way to collect revenue to finance
waterways utilized to transport goods and materials that
benefit the national economy. Corps projects are justified
based on benefits to the national economy, so as the Nation
benefits, the Nation should contribute towards the
recapitalization of these assets.
The Inland Waterways System is far too important to allow
it to continue to languish with inadequate funding and
crumbling infrastructure. The Committee has been patiently
waiting for six budget cycles for a solution to these problems
from the administration and the appropriate congressional
committees. The Senate authorizing committee has taken an
initial step of attempting to address some of these problems
through the Water Resources Development Act process. Due to the
uncertainty of the resolution of these issues through the
authorizing process, the Committee has decided to take action
on its own.
For fiscal year 2014, the Committee has included
legislative language directing that no costs for Olmsted Lock
and Dam should be drawn from the IWTF. This action will ensure
that funding for inland navigation will be consistent with the
budget request without impacting the other missions of the
Corps.
This action was not taken lightly by the Committee. It is a
recognition that something has got to change. It should not be
looked at as a permanent solution. This is a 1-year change in
the proportionality of the IWTF/General Treasury split for
fiscal year 2014. It does not change the ultimate cost sharing
for Olmsted. It only delays the inevitable day of reckoning
when the costs for Olmsted will have to be brought back into
the proper 50/50 balance. Legislation must be enacted to ensure
that sufficient funding is available to ensure that this
transportation infrastructure will continue to function as
designed providing benefits to the national economy.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR INLAND WATERWAYS

The administration segregates the Inland Waterways System
into at least two parts for budgeting purposes. Those that are
designated as ``low use'' are given considerably lower budget
priority for maintenance dollars than the remainder of the
system. While these ``low use'' waterways may not have a
significant impact on the national economy, they exert a
tremendous influence on local and regional economies.
When these projects were analyzed for implementation, the
maintenance costs for the project's 50-year economic life was
calculated as a part of the benefit to cost ratio. One would
assume that if the project was constructed, that the project's
benefits to the national economy had to exceed the costs
(including the maintenance costs) to the national economy.
Therefore the budget criterion currently being utilized to
determine funding for these projects has nothing to do with the
actual economics of the project. It is a an invention of the
administration based solely on the tonnage moved. No
consideration is given to the economics of whether the project
benefits exceed the project costs even though the benefit to
cost ratio is the rationale of choice behind other
administration funding decisions in the budget request.
The ``low use'' waterways move more than 50 million tons
annually. That obviously pales in comparison to the roughly 550
million tons moved on the ``high use'' waterways. However,
these 50 million tons of cargo would still have to be moved
somehow, if they are not moved by water transportation. The
only other candidates are truck and rail. It would require 2
million trucks or 455,000 rail cars to move the same amount of
cargo that can be moved on 33,500 barges. The shipping costs to
the national economy to move the same commodities to the same
destinations would likely increase by at least $500,000,000 by
rail or $1,500,000,000 by truck. The costs cited do not even
begin to include the costs to the economy of the increased
pollution, the likely increase in transportation fatalities or
other costs that would be incurred. If maintenance of all ``low
use'' projects were fully funded, the Corps budget would be
increased by less than $200,000,000. The Committee urges the
administration to reconsider this short-sighted budgetary
decision in future budget submissions. Shortchanging
maintenance for these projects seems to be ``pennywise but
pound foolish.''

HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

Available revenue from the 0.125 percent tax on the value
of imports at designated harbors provides roughly
$1,500,000,000 annually to this fund. Ten-year projections
indicate that these collections could increase as much as
$100,000,000 per year. These revenues can be utilized for
maintenance on more than 1,500 ports, harbors and waterways.
The fiscal year 2014 budget proposes $890,000,000 for
maintenance of commercial waterways and ports to be
appropriated from the General Treasury and ultimately
reimbursed from the HMTF. This imbalance between receipts and
appropriations has led to a surplus in the HMTF of some
$7,900,000,000 which grows annually.
For illustrative purposes, the Committee has included two
tables that show the recent history of the HMTF collections
(fiscal year 2008-2012) as well as the recent history of the
administration's budget requests for HMTF eligible work (fiscal
years 2011-2014). The table is listed alphabetically by State.
Due to the lag time involved in the reporting of HMT data it is
not possible to include the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 HMTF
collections. For HMTF eligible activities proposed by the
administration, it should be noted that projects that serve
multiple States are only budgeted in a single State. This fact
may distort the amounts proposed to be expended in the various
States with some States being under-represented and some States
being over-represented. It should also be noted that the
columns for the fiscal year 2011-2014 administration budget
requests only include HMTF eligible work funded through the
Corps' O&M account. In a given year about 90 percent of the
annual HMT expenditures are the result of the Corps' O&M
activities.

HARBOR MAINTENANCE TAX COLLECTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
State -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average 2008-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA................................ $902,435 $811,756 $964,509 $1,132,274 $1,467,912 $1,055,777
ALABAMA............................... 11,001,093 6,593,890 7,620,283 10,344,400 10,839,144 9,279,762
CALIFORNIA............................ 416,603,926 318,284,030 372,335,917 431,738,528 462,867,037 400,365,888
CONNECTICUT........................... 2,414,105 1,600,436 1,669,615 1,930,572 1,834,326 1,889,811
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 53 11
DELAWARE.............................. 7,652,443 3,740,850 5,410,192 7,026,436 10,026,534 6,771,291
FLORIDA............................... 51,199,550 34,596,137 40,351,122 48,518,886 51,858,142 45,304,767
GEORGIA............................... 51,690,343 40,180,614 50,178,176 62,502,409 68,943,409 54,698,990
HAWAII................................ 6,900,957 4,033,392 4,822,109 6,050,745 7,087,708 5,778,982
ILLINOIS.............................. 676,320 397,194 568,165 850,001 392,719 576,880
INDIANA............................... 192,181 290,046 161,060 175,646 516,089 267,004
LOUISIANA............................. 126,962,832 64,400,843 85,797,854 75,120,837 71,661,826 84,788,838
MASSACHUSETTS......................... 12,268,475 8,788,328 9,824,224 11,546,161 12,168,444 10,919,126
MARYLAND.............................. 36,233,352 24,294,073 31,818,856 37,000,339 40,413,798 33,952,083
MAINE................................. 3,576,471 2,632,729 2,606,026 3,321,014 3,910,923 3,209,432
MICHIGAN.............................. 875,586 537,136 760,384 993,021 735,845 780,394
MINNESOTA............................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. .................
MISSISSIPPI........................... 14,462,209 10,915,579 13,190,389 16,024,985 16,037,378 14,126,108
NORTH CAROLINA........................ 4,902,810 4,924,842 6,049,838 7,661,123 7,511,907 6,210,104
NEW HAMPSHIRE......................... 958,318 671,041 844,091 1,282,499 1,017,902 954,770
NEW JERSEY............................ 18,464,919 8,795,910 6,836,716 7,353,602 9,580,062 10,206,242
NEW YORK.............................. 174,005,325 133,602,251 155,008,501 182,022,489 196,598,965 168,247,506
OHIO.................................. 1,913,360 834,013 1,108,898 1,519,422 1,300,850 1,335,309
OREGON................................ 14,626,570 8,491,149 9,374,124 9,039,173 10,899,327 10,486,069
PENNSYLVANIA.......................... 41,901,235 24,964,078 30,345,168 41,003,717 32,679,858 34,178,811
PUERTO RICO........................... 12,699,338 8,852,039 10,263,781 11,175,861 13,719,366 11,342,077
RHODE ISLAND.......................... 6,623,161 4,677,071 6,304,664 8,396,153 9,018,230 7,003,856
SOUTH CAROLINA........................ 49,896,082 35,715,760 38,004,745 44,271,046 49,882,610 43,554,049
TEXAS................................. 219,754,910 130,386,070 161,248,715 200,311,177 216,463,341 185,632,842
VIRGINIA.............................. 43,163,585 32,510,798 35,110,355 37,506,131 43,621,379 38,382,449
VIRGIN ISLANDS........................ 20,524,649 11,133,342 13,738,664 14,957,337 4,367,137 12,944,226
WASHINGTON............................ 80,361,629 62,494,026 71,937,804 78,373,364 89,576,228 76,548,610
WISCONSIN............................. 453,192 183,368 297,321 203,823 216,557 270,852
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................... 1,433,861,363 990,332,789 1,174,552,264 1,359,353,171 1,447,215,003 1,281,062,918
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The estimated HMT receipts are based on the Customs value for waterborne imports multiplied by the .125% HMT rate. Customs value is generally defined
as the price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the U.S. Customs value excludes U.S. import duties, freight,
insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States.
\2\Many projects span and serve multiple States, but are budgeted under only one State.

PRESIDENT'S O&M BUDGET REQUESTS
[Includes coastal O&M only. Excludes MR&T--O&M and Construction for DMDFs, sand mitigation, and beneficial use]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Average 2011-
2011 2012 2013 2014 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA............................................................. $19,450,000 $17,426,000 $17,563,000 $19,683,000 $18,530,500
ALABAMA............................................................ 23,560,000 23,460,000 31,771,000 27,148,000 26,484,750
CALIFORNIA......................................................... 59,343,000 51,973,000 60,970,000 68,584,000 60,217,500
CONNECTICUT........................................................ 3,610,000 1,850,000 3,550,000 9,950,000 4,740,000
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA............................................... 900,000 940,000 925,000 925,000 922,500
DELAWARE........................................................... 40,915,000 43,413,000 45,170,000 44,268,000 43,441,500
FLORIDA............................................................ 26,740,000 32,072,000 36,358,000 43,898,000 34,767,000
GEORGIA............................................................ 25,661,000 20,729,000 25,351,000 29,644,531 25,346,383
HAWAII............................................................. 604,000 1,181,000 737,000 1,713,000 1,058,750
ILLINOIS........................................................... 7,708,000 6,977,000 6,838,000 8,493,000 7,504,000
INDIANA............................................................ 6,056,000 7,036,000 11,276,000 13,237,000 9,401,250
LOUISIANA.......................................................... 96,804,000 97,326,000 113,060,000 117,856,000 106,261,500
MASSACHUSETTS...................................................... 15,426,000 16,021,000 7,537,000 8,353,000 11,834,250
MARYLAND........................................................... 20,965,000 16,459,000 18,032,000 24,358,000 19,953,500
MAINE.............................................................. 2,365,000 1,850,000 14,800,000 2,150,000 5,291,250
MICHIGAN........................................................... 38,236,000 34,416,000 30,704,000 39,333,140 35,672,285
MINNESOTA.......................................................... 6,987,000 7,403,000 5,683,000 5,750,000 6,455,750
MISSISSIPPI........................................................ 10,872,000 7,603,000 10,960,000 10,598,000 10,008,250
NORTH CAROLINA..................................................... 22,357,000 20,945,000 24,960,000 25,960,000 23,555,500
NEW HAMPSHIRE...................................................... 275,000 750,000 275,000 250,000 387,500
NEW JERSEY......................................................... 13,031,000 10,483,000 18,164,000 9,022,000 12,675,000
NEW YORK........................................................... 29,014,000 21,084,000 19,751,000 33,993,000 25,960,500
OHIO............................................................... 22,076,000 18,008,000 18,527,000 20,371,000 19,745,500
OREGON............................................................. 52,251,000 50,254,000 41,321,000 65,654,000 52,370,000
PENNSYLVANIA....................................................... 2,629,000 1,465,000 1,100,000 4,905,000 2,524,750
PUERTO RICO........................................................ 3,700,000 2,700,000 ............... ............... 1,600,000
RHODE ISLAND....................................................... 1,750,000 700,000 750,000 350,000 887,500
SOUTH CAROLINA..................................................... 17,390,000 20,124,000 21,348,000 21,300,000 20,040,500
TEXAS.............................................................. 66,962,000 68,713,000 76,530,000 87,575,000 74,945,000
VIRGINIA........................................................... 18,793,000 18,038,000 17,794,000 20,881,000 18,876,500
VIRGIN ISLANDS..................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
WASHINGTON......................................................... 23,896,000 25,896,000 42,992,000 24,820,000 29,401,000
WISCONSIN.......................................................... 4,609,000 3,694,000 3,468,000 4,355,000 4,031,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................................................ 684,935,000 650,989,000 728,265,000 795,377,671 714,891,668
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEVEE SAFETY

One positive outcome from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina
was that the public became more aware of the levees that
protect their communities. This new awareness resulted in an
examination of the conditions of these projects. Concurrent
with this new awareness was the Federal Emergency Management
Agency [FEMA] map modernization program for flood insurance
rate maps. With this remapping came the issue of certification
of existing levees and the need to determine how safe these
levees are. All of these factors have combined to cause a great
deal of uncertainty.
The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization
Act was enacted with the intention to alleviate some of these
uncertainties. The Committee directs the United States Army
Corps of Engineers [USACE] and the Department of Homeland
Security to ensure the plain language of the levee
accreditation provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance
Reform and Modernization Act are met, and that flood maps
reflect protection provided by levees included in the Corps
Inspection of Completed Works program that meet FEMA's
accreditation standards without requiring non-Federal sponsors
to hire private engineers to fill information gaps left by
Federal agencies. The Committee expects a July 2013 delivery of
the Flood Protection Structure Accreditation Task Force report
that was required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform
and Modernization Act.
While the Committee would like to believe that engineered
structures will never fail, the reality is that all engineered
structures have the potential for failure if the right set of
circumstances happen at the right time. Risk is inherent in any
man-made structure and the Corps is charged with balancing that
risk with the costs of the risk reduction measures. The cost
for risk-free protection is more than the Nation has been
willing to consider for any project. There are always trade-
offs. This is especially true with flood control structures.
There is always a larger flood, or an unknown or unaccounted
for failure mode that can cause the structure to fail. The
Committee looks to the Corps to propose and build structures to
protect people based on the risks that they may face and to
communicate the residual risk that people protected by these
structure still face. It should be understood that while the
structures mitigate risk, they do not eliminate it.
The Committee fully supports the Corps' efforts on levee
safety. However, the Committee remains concerned that the costs
to repair levees may be overwhelming to local interests. The
Committee is not suggesting that the Corps should back away
from its safety culture, only that there should be checks and
balances to ensure that recommendations are not blindly made in
the name of safety without determining if the recommendations
actually provide cost effective safety improvements. The
Committee encourages the Corps when working with communities on
levee issues to be cognizant of the costs for proposed fixes
and the community's ability to fund the repairs.

LEVEE VEGETATION

The Committee is aware of the Corps' updated draft policy
regarding the consideration of vegetation variances for levees,
and appreciates the work of Corps Districts and Divisions in
working with affected levee sponsors and systems. The Committee
is aware that the Engineer Research and Development Center
completed an initial research effort to advance the Corps'
knowledge and understanding of the effects of woody vegetation
on levees which indicated that minimal data exists on the
scientific relationship between woody vegetation and levees.
The Committee urges the Corps to continue to conduct additional
scientific research on this topic. The Committee strongly
encourages the Corps to take seriously its requirements under
the Endangered Species Act and in meeting tribal treaty
obligations, and to clarify how it will apply those
considerations in the final vegetation variance policy.

PLANNING PROGRAM

The Committee is pleased that the Corps continues to review
its planning program and is trying to make it more responsive
to the local sponsors and Congress. The Committee is supportive
of the Corps' announced 3-3-3 concept to reduce the maximum
level of cost of completing a feasibility study to 3 years and
the sum spent to $3,000,000. While better, faster and cheaper
sounds desirable, in the Committee's experience only 2 out of
those 3 items ultimately get delivered. In the pursuit of the
3-3-3 plan the Committee would caution the Corps that
transferring tasks and costs to either the preconstruction
engineering and design phase or the construction phase of the
project is not really a solution--it just repackages the
problem.
The Committee remains concerned about the inconsistent
nature of the planning process across the Corps. While
shortening the planning process to 3 years is a laudable goal,
the Committee recognizes that some timeframes within the
planning process are statutory and cannot be shortened and some
studies require a more in-depth look. Items such as determining
the future without project conditions and determining the array
of alternatives that should be considered require careful
evaluation. The bedrock of any Corps study remains these
assumptions that are made at the beginning of the planning
process. If they are given short shrift, then the
recommendations of the planning study will be suspect.
There are certain times when speed is truly essential. One
such case is when an area with a flood control system that
currently is certified to meet the 100-year standard has a
change in estimates of river flow conditions. In such a case
the communities need to act to make improvements quickly to
minimize the time they may be found out of compliance with the
100-year standard. In such cases, where speed is of the essence
additional flexibility regarding the requirements should be
considered.
What is clear is that a one-size-fits-all approach will not
work due to the great variations in problems and needs
throughout the country. More consistency as to how these
problems and needs are evaluated should be the goal. The
importance of these study reports cannot be overstated. They
are the basis from which all of the Corps' work is derived and
Congress depends heavily on these planning reports to inform
the decisionmaking process for authorizing and funding these
infrastructure investments. The Committee will continue to
monitor the progress of improving the consistency of the
planning process.

CREDIT FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS

The Committee is aware that on February 17, 2012, the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) issued ER 1165-2-
208. This ER implemented the Secretary's decision of May 5,
2011, to no longer award credit for advance construction
performed by non-Federal interests under section 104 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The Committee is
concerned that this decision may create a disincentive for non-
Federal interests to construct urgently needed flood damage
reduction projects. The Committee urges the Assistant Secretary
to consider credits under section 221 of the Flood Control Act
of 1970, even when an associated Federal study has not yet
reached the milestone required under ER 1165-2-208, if a
preponderance of the following factors would support the
issuance of credit: (1) the proposed construction is an
improvement or modification to an existing federally authorized
levee system; (2) the proposed construction will significantly
follow an existing levee alignment, especially in reaches where
the existing levee alignment protects existing infrastructure;
(3) the proposed construction will provide increased flood
protection at least 36 months sooner than a future federally
constructed project is likely to be able to; and (4) the
proposed construction addresses areas with a high degree of
flood damage risk or have previously flooded.

LEVELS OF SERVICE AT LOCKS AND DAMS

The Committee is concerned about the Corps Levels of
Service proposals at Locks and Dams. Chief among these concerns
is the direct economic as well as unintended impacts that
reduced hours of service may have on lower use waterways. One
of the tools that waterway economic development proponents use
in marketing an inland waterway to potential businesses is the
reliability and 24-hour access to dependable navigable depths
along the waterway. If 24-hour access is reduced to 12-hour
access, it can be a detriment to enticing new business
prospects. Businesses will likely believe if you can reduce it
this much, what will keep it from being further reduced.
The Committee understands that operation and maintenance
budgets are tight; however, the rationale for reducing hours of
operation does not seem to net much in additional maintenance
funding--which was the original reason given for reducing
levels of service. The Committee remains concerned about the
limited budgetary resources for infrastructure improvements on
the Nation's locks and dams, and encourages the Corps to use
all options within their statutory authority to collect
additional funds. Such efforts should include acceptance of
contributed funds to maintain robust lock operations. Such
efforts should also include engaging in private partnerships,
which the Committee believes, should be in partnership with
State agencies, to ensure that locks are safe and operational
for purposes of economic growth and incentives that foster
economic and community development.
Due to the Committee's concerns about levels of service,
the Committee believes that it would be prudent for the Corps
of Engineers headquarters to suspend any reductions of service
at locks and dams, except for those having limited commercial
traffic with no consistent pattern of lockages, and undertake
an analysis of whether this reduced service is in the best
economic interest of the Nation. This analysis should include
the benefits and impacts of retaining 24-hour service at each
individual lock or segment of waterway where reduced hours are
proposed. The current ad hoc determinations being undertaken by
the individual field operating agencies of the Corps may not be
examining the full ramifications of these reductions of
service.
Where service levels at locks have been reduced, the
Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers is authorized to
open locks independently of the established levels of service
for specific and unique activities where such opening and
closing will be advantageous to fostering economic and
community development. Local economies across the country
experience economic windfalls by using locks and dams for
commercial and recreational use, such as fishing tournaments
which are unrelated to commercial barge traffic. The Committee
is encouraged that the Corps has given local communities
assurances that, within their current statutory authority, they
will be sensitive to related impacts on local economies. The
Committee expects the Corps will consider economic incentives
unrelated to commercial barge traffic when presented with
requests by local communities for specific and unique
activities requiring locks to be operated outside of
established levels of service.

CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING

The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the
Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional
direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in
accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the
Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control
may dictate the progress of any given project or study.
The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation
provided in the Fiscal Year 2014 Energy and Water Development
Act.

NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

The Committee has recommended funding for new starts this
year. The Committee feels this is prudent since no new starts
have been provided for the Corps since fiscal year 2010 while
83 studies; which includes 34 reconnaissance studies, 39
feasibility studies, and 10 preconstruction engineering and
design studies; and 37 construction projects have been
completed since that time.
The Committee recognizes that we are in a constrained
budget environment and that environment will likely continue
for the remainder of the decade. However, the Committee
believes that new investment opportunities should be presented
to Congress for consideration. Also, some previously authorized
projects should be reviewed to ensure that they are still
economically viable, environmentally sustainable and
technically sound. For these reasons, the Committee has
recommended the ten new study starts proposed by the
administration within the General Investigations Account.
The Committee is including the following new starts
proposed in the administration's budget request for fiscal year
2014: Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New
York, West Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia;
Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River), California;
Louisiana Coastal Comprehensive Study; Houston Ship Channel,
Texas; Coyote Dam, California; Dry Creek (Warm Springs),
California; Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration, Texas;
Seattle Harbor, Washington; Salton Sea, California; and the
Water Resources Priorities Study.
The Committee also believes that investments in our
infrastructure are investments in our economy and that these
investments should also be continued even during constrained
budgets as the benefits to the economy from these projects
continue for decades. The Committee recommends the following
four new construction starts proposed in the administration
budget request: Hamilton City, California Flood Protection and
Ecosystem Restoration; Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana; Lower
Colorado River Basin, Onion Creek, Texas; and Columbia River at
the Mouth, Oregon and Washington.
In addition, the Secretary is directed to propose a single
group of new starts to the House and Senate Appropriation
Committees within 45 days of enactment of this act as a part of
the work plan. The new starts shall consist of five additional
new study starts and three additional new construction starts.
The majority of the benefits of the selected new starts must be
derived from navigation, storm damage reduction or the flood
control mission areas of the Corps. The Committee understands
that there are more than ninety potential new studies and more
than thirty construction projects that meet this criteria. The
Committee is recommending this new start proposal to provide
balance to the ecosystem restoration new starts proposed in the
administration's budget request. By allowing the administration
to select these additional new start studies and projects and
directing that they come from the navigation and flood control
mission areas of the Corps the Committee is attempting to
ensure that the Corps' future programs will continue to balance
the various missions of the Corps.

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE

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

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous
with earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the
Corps of Engineers where the majority of the budget request is
based on individual line item studies and projects. Due to this
ongoing debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all
congressionally directed spending requests for fiscal year
2014. That means that the administration has total discretion
as to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be
spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The
Committee has retained the traditional tables for each of the
four major accounts delineating the 919 line items requested by
the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in the
administration's budget request, the Committee has also
inserted additional line item funding under the nationwide
heading for specific categories of studies or projects that the
Committee feels are underrepresented in the administration's
budget request. The Corps has discretion within the guidelines
provided in each account as to which line items this additional
funding will be applied to. The Committee has not included any
congressionally directed spending as defined in section 5(a) of
rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $174,750,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 90,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 120,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes emergency funding of $50,000,000 in the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-2).

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need,
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency
coordination and research activities.
The planning program is the entry point for Federal
involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource
problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations
[GI] account amount proposed in the budget is generally the
same as what has been proposed in previous budgets. Nationwide
studies and programs consume almost one-half of the
administration's GI request. This budget asserts that the
Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing
studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies.
The Committee has provided for a balanced planning program
for fiscal year 2014 with 15 new study starts--10 from the
budget request and an additional five to be selected based on
the Corps' prioritization process and included as a part of the
General Investigations work plan.
The Committee has and continues to consider planning as one
``seamless'' phase of project development. This phase starts
when Congress makes an investment decision by funding a ``new
start'' reconnaissance level study. If the reconnaissance
studies produce a recommendation that further studies are
warranted, and a non-Federal sponsor is willing and able to
share the costs, the Corps is expected to expeditiously budget
for and continue with a feasibility level study. If the
feasibility studies produce a project recommendation, and a
non-Federal sponsor is willing and able to share the costs, the
Corps is expected to expeditiously budget for and proceed with
preconstruction engineering and design studies while awaiting
project authorization. It should be understood that the only
new start decision is whether to start a reconnaissance level
study. All other studies flow from that decision point through
the completion of preconstruction engineering and design. There
should be no other ``new starts'' considered within this
planning phase.
The Committee believes that by segregating the table in
this manner, more attention can be focused on the various study
phases, and a more balanced planning program can be developed
by the administration. As the last two columns are generally
cost shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost-sharing
sponsors to be a part of the Federal planning process. By the
same token, it also shows the level of commitment of the
Federal Government to these cost-sharing sponsors. The display
of the table in this manner should not be interpreted by the
administration that Congress supports a new start decision for
each study phase nor does Congress intend for the
administration to budget individual phases as new starts.
The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance
are shown on the following table:

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

MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................. ......... ......... 600 ......... ......... 600

ALASKA

ALASKA REGIONAL PORTS, AK..................... ......... 750 ......... ......... 750 .........
LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK..................... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK................. ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........

ARKANSAS

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, AR, IL, ......... 99 ......... ......... 99 .........
KY, LA MS, MO, AND TN........................
WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO.... ......... 650 ......... ......... 650 .........

CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA... ......... 800 ......... ......... 800 .........
COYOTE VALLEY DAM RESTORATION, CA............. 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... .........
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) RESTORATION, CA...... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... .........
LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA....................... ......... 800 ......... ......... 800 .........
SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN ......... 466 ......... ......... 466 .........
STUDY, CA....................................
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA.. ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........
SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA.. ......... 447 ......... ......... 447 .........
SALTON SEA RESTORATION, CA.................... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... .........
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA............. ......... 700 ......... ......... 700 .........
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, LOWER SAN JOAQUIN, CA ......... 751 ......... ......... 751 .........
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA............. ......... 1,035 ......... ......... 1,035 .........
YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA................... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... .........
YUBA RIVER, CA................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........

COLORADO

CACHE LA POUDRE, CO........................... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........

FLORIDA

FLAGLER COUNTY, FL............................ ......... 390 ......... ......... 390 .........

GEORGIA

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA................. ......... ......... 1,280 ......... ......... .........

HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI....................... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
HILO HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HI................. ......... 775 ......... ......... 775 .........
WEST MAUI WATERSHED, MAUI, HI................. ......... 538 ......... ......... 538 .........

ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION , IL......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES--MISSISSIPPI ......... 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 .........
RIVER AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH,
AND WI.......................................

KANSAS

BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO.................. ......... 229 ......... ......... 229 .........
MANHATTAN, KS................................. ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........

KENTUCKY

GREEN AND BARREN DISPOSITION, KY.............. ......... 150 ......... ......... 150 .........

LOUISIANA

CALCASIEU LOCK, LA............................ ......... 750 ......... ......... 750 .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LA. 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, ......... 3,321 1,964 ......... 3,321 1,964
LA...........................................

MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, MONTGOMERY ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........
COUNTY, MD...................................
ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, PRINCE ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........
GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD..........................
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA, AND 250 ......... ......... 250 ......... .........
VA...........................................

MASSACHUSETTS

BOSTON HARBOR DEEP DRAFT, MA.................. ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN AND SD ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 .........
(MINNESOTA RIVER AUTHORITY)..................

MISSOURI

MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO................ ......... 450 ......... ......... 450 .........

MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT................ ......... 750 ......... ......... 750 .........

NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NH ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
AND VT.......................................
MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH AND MA.... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........

NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ.............. ......... 375 ......... ......... 375 .........
DELAWARE RIVER DREDGE MATERIAL UTILIZATION, NJ ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
NJ...........................................
PASSAIC RIVER MAINSTEM, NJ.................... ......... 240 ......... ......... 240 .........
PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ....................... ......... 291 ......... ......... 291 .........

NEW MEXICO

ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........
NM...........................................
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO, AND TX.............. ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........

NEW YORK

HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ............. ......... 550 ......... ......... 550 .........
WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, BYRAM RIVER BASIN, ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
NY AND CT....................................

NORTH CAROLINA

NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC......................... ......... ......... 450 ......... ......... 450
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC......... ......... ......... 225 ......... ......... 225
WILMINGTON HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, NC............ ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........

NORTH DAKOTA

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD, AND ......... 433 ......... ......... 433 .........
MANITOBA, CANADA.............................

OREGON

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR ......... 450 ......... ......... 450 .........
AND WA.......................................
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR............. ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........

SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC......................... ......... 1,165 ......... ......... 1,165 .........

TEXAS

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX. ......... 385 ......... ......... 385 .........
COASTAL TEXAS PROTECTION AND RESTORATION 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... .........
STUDY, TX....................................
DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX ......... 850 ......... ......... 850 .........
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX........................... ......... ......... 1,200 ......... ......... 1,200
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX.... ......... 488 ......... ......... 488 .........
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... .........
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.............. ......... 650 ......... ......... 650 .........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX.............. ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........

VIRGINIA

NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA (DEEPENING)... ......... 800 ......... ......... 800 .........

WASHINGTON

GRAYS HARBOR, WA.............................. ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
RESTORATION, WA..............................
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA............................ 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... .........
SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA..................... ......... 650 ......... ......... 650 .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES............ 1,150 32,028 6,119 1,150 32,028 4,839

REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION.......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 .........
FLOOD CONTROL......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 8,000 .........
SHORE PROTECTION...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5,000 .........
NAVIGATION................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,000 .........
COASTAL AND DEEP-DRAFT................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 6,000 .........
INLAND................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 4,000 .........
SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,000 .........
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 .........
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 .........
COMPLIANCE...........................
REMOTE, COASTAL, OR SMALL WATERSHED... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,000 .........

COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES:
ACCESS TO WATER DATA...................... ......... 750 ......... ......... 750 .........
COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........

OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS:
CALFED................................ ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM................ ......... 75 ......... ......... 75 .........
COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........
AGENCIES.............................
GULF OF MEXICO........................ ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT. ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........
INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ......... 955 ......... ......... 955 .........
INVENTORY OF DAMS..................... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
LAKE TAHOE............................ ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
PACIFIC NW FOREST CASE................ ......... 10 ......... ......... 10 .........
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS................ ......... 1,350 ......... ......... 1,350 .........
FERC LICENSING........................ ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES............. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... 4,000 .........

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA:
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI- ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 .........
CADD.....................................
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION............. ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 .........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES................ ......... 75 ......... ......... 75 .........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA......................... ......... 220 ......... ......... 220 .........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES........... ......... 9,500 ......... ......... 9,500 .........
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES........................ ......... 250 ......... ......... 250 .........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES............... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES..................... ......... 225 ......... ......... 225 .........
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ......... 75 ......... ......... 75 .........
SYSTEM SUPPORT...........................
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION ......... 50 ......... ......... 50 .........
CENTERS..................................
STREAM GAGING............................. ......... 550 ......... ......... 550 .........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.................... ......... 950 ......... ......... 950 .........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT...................... ......... 16,143 ......... ......... 17,923 .........

OTHER--MISC:
INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW................... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........
NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.... ......... 5,000 ......... ......... 5,000 .........
NATIONAL SHORELINE........................ ......... 675 ......... ......... 675 .........
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM.................. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... 4,000 .........
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM................ ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 .........
WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY.......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... .........
NATIONAL FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT............ ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,500 .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL................................ 1,150 82,731 6,119 1,150 123,011 4,839

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... -9,000 .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................... 1,150 82,731 6,119 1,150 114,011 4,839
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL............................. ......... 90,000 ......... ......... 120,000 .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mobile Harbor, Alabama.--The Committee supports the
President's budget request for this study and expects the Corps
to conduct the study to account for the full depth as
authorized in section 201 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986.
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee has not
funded this item in the GI account as recommended by the
administration. The Committee has transferred the budget
request to the Construction, General account where the
Committee has funded it every year since fiscal year 2009.
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan, Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--The Committee understands
that during the 2011 flooding on the Mississippi River that
considerable damages were concentrated on the Upper Mississippi
River Basin where there is no comprehensive flood risk
management plan. The comprehensive Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project in the lower basin limited damages incurred
despite record stages in many locations. The Committee believes
that a comprehensive plan for the upper basin would provide
considerable benefits and urges the Corps to provide funding
for these efforts.
Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study, Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.--
In the aftermath of two successive years of management
challenges on the Missouri River due to flood and drought, the
Committee recognizes the importance of developing information
to better inform public policy decisions. The Committee urges
the Corps to reinitiate the review of the original project
purposes based on the Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended,
and other subsequent relevant legislation and judicial rulings
to determine if changes to the authorized purposes of the
existing Federal water resources infrastructure may be
warranted to provide solutions to these management challenges.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The fiscal year 2014
budget request does not reflect the extent of need for project
studies funding. The Corps has numerous continuing studies that
will be suspended under the limits of the budget request. These
studies could lead to projects with significant economic
benefits, particularly by increasing national competitiveness
through marine transportation improvements and by avoiding
damages caused by flooding and coastal storms. The Committee
recommends additional funds to continue ongoing studies. None
of these funds may be used for any item where funding was
specifically denied. While this additional funding is shown in
the feasibility column, the Corps should utilize these funds in
any applicable phase of work. The intent of these funds is for
ongoing work that either was not included in the
administration's request or was inadequately budgeted. Ongoing
studies that are actively progressing and can utilize the
funding in a timely manner are eligible for these additional
funds.
The five new study starts directed as part of the work plan
shall be funded from the appropriate additional funding line
item. It should be understood that the Committee intends that
there be only fifteen new study starts in fiscal year 2014.
When considering which new study starts to propose, the
administration should give higher priority to those studies
that are regional in scope, have the potential to provide
greater national benefits, address endangered species concerns
or provide protection to large numbers of our citizens.
Additionally, recognizing the constrained fiscal environment,
the administration should give careful consideration to the
outyear budget impacts of the studies that they choose as well
as whether there appears to be an identifiable local sponsor
that will be ready and able to provide the necessary cost
shares for the feasibility and preconstruction engineering and
design phases of the study phase. These new studies should be
conducted utilizing the Corps 3 3 3 approach and completed
as expeditiously as possible. As all of these studies are to be
chosen by the administration (either through the budget request
or through the work plan, it should be understood that all are
equal and should be appropriately budgeted for in future
budgets submissions to ensure they meet the 3 3 3
approach).
Funding associated with each category may be allocated to
any eligible study within that category; funding associated
with each subcategory may be allocated only to eligible studies
within that subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant
to be exhaustive. The Committee directs that priority in
allocating these funds be given to funding the five new starts
directed by the Committee, completing or accelerating ongoing
studies which will enhance the Nation's economic development,
job growth, and international competitiveness, are for projects
located in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters,
or are for areas where revisions to flood frequency flow lines
may result in a situation where existing infrastructure no
longer meets the requirements under the National Flood
Insurance program.
Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
work plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed and
in which phase the work is to be accomplished. The Committee
directs that a listing should accompany the work plan showing
all the ongoing studies that were considered eligible and could
have used funding for fiscal year 2014 and the reasons why
these items were considered as being less competitive for
inclusion in the work plan.
Water Resources Priorities Study.--Rather than fund the
Water Resources Priorities Study requested in this account or
the Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability Study requested in the
O&M account, the Committee is funding a study that would be a
combination of the two. The Committee believes that the goals
of these studies are not mutually exclusive and if the study
results are going to be used to set priorities, then
modifications to existing infrastructure should be prioritized
along with new infrastructure needs. The Committee believes
that this study should examine the flood risks across the
Nation in light of the conditions today and projecting the
conditions into the future based on the best available science.
Priority should be given to urban population centers that are
currently at risk from flooding or are anticipated to be at
risk based on scientific projections. As current flood control
infrastructure continues to age, the viability of that
infrastructure should be evaluated to determine, based on the
best scientific information, how and whether that
infrastructure will remain effective in the future. The report
should make recommendations that include not only the usual
structural measures, where no or inadequate infrastructure
currently exists, but should also include recommendations for
modifications of existing infrastructure to allow it to be
repurposed or deauthorized, as appropriate, to meet projected
needs. This should be a forward-looking report that could make
nonstructural recommendations concerning ways to accommodate
potential sea level rise and its impacts on threatened coastal
or riverine flood plains. While these are solutions that may
necessarily be locally driven, the report recommendations
should include ways for the Federal Government to incentivize
local jurisdictions to undertake these socially and
economically difficult alternatives. The Corps should refer to
this study in all future documents as the National Flood Risk
Assessment Study.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $5,131,652,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 1,350,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,542,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes emergency funding of $3,461,000,000 in the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-2).

This appropriation includes funds for construction, major
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources
development projects having navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, water supply, hydroelectric, environmental
restoration, and other attendant benefits to the Nation. The
construction and major rehabilitation for designated projects
for inland and costal waterways will derive one-half of the
funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Funds to be
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied
to cover the Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal
Facilities Program.
The administration request for the Construction, General
account is $1,350,000,000, a decrease of $320,652,000 from the
fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before sequester and
supplemental disaster appropriations. By the Committee's
estimate, less than 60 percent of the needed funding is
available in this account. Construction will slip due to
constrained funding and benefits to the national economy will
be deferred. As the Committee has noted over the last 8 years
the funding proposed for this account appears to be ``pennywise
and pound foolish.'' As was noted in this report last year,
lack of investment in this infrastructure has lead to another
Katrina-style disaster along the east coast due to incomplete
or damaged flood control or shore protection infrastructure. We
are again expending billions trying to restore and accelerate
the construction of the infrastructure that failed at a much
greater cost than if the work had been planned and budgeted for
in a more thoughtful manner.
The Committee recommendation includes $1,542,000,000 in new
budget authority for this account. The Committee recognizes
that this is considerably less than the needs in the program
but is the best that can be accomplished in this constrained
fiscal environment. The Committee rejects the $100,000,000
rescission proposed in the administration's budget request.
The Committee has provided for seven new construction
starts in fiscal year 2014--four new construction starts
proposed in the budget request and three to be selected based
on the Corps' prioritization process and included as a part of
the Construction, General work plan.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:

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

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON 2,500 2,500
FEATURES), CA..........................
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM 66,400 66,400
MODS), CA..............................
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM 3,150 3,150
RAISE), CA.............................
HAMILTON CITY, CA....................... 15,000 15,000
ISABELLA LAKE, CA (DAM SAFETY).......... 28,200 28,200
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA.. 3,200 3,200
OAKLAND HARBOR (50-FOOT PROJECT), CA.... 100 100
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION 3,000 3,000
PROJECT, CA............................
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA............ 42,000 42,000
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA.................... 1,800 1,800

FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL................... 5,200 5,200
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE 86,000 86,000
CONTROL)...............................
NASSAU COUNTY, FL....................... 9,000 9,000
PINELLAS COUNTY, FL..................... 7,700 7,700
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL. 88,000 88,000
TAMPA HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL, FL........... 3,380 3,380

GEORGIA

LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA.......... 50 50
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND 880 880
SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, GA AND 8,000 8,000
SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA........... .............. 1,280
TYBEE ISLAND, GA........................ 300 300

ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 400 400
IL (DEF CORR)..........................
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL 27,600 27,600
DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL..................
EAST ST. LOUIS, IL...................... 12,855 12,855
ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK AND 11,400 11,400
DAM, IL (MAJOR REHAB)..................
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL...... 25,500 25,500
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL 163,000 163,000
AND KY.................................
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, 31,968 31,968
IA, MN, MO, AND WI.....................
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, DEFICIENCY CORRECTION 20,860 20,860
AND RECONSTRUCTION, IL.................

INDIANA

LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN................ 5,000 5,000

IOWA

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE 70,000 70,000
RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, AND
SD.....................................

KANSAS

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO........... 6,000 6,000

KENTUCKY

ROUGH RIVER, KY (MAJOR REHAB)........... 5,800 5,800

LOUISIANA

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............ 10,543 10,543
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM 1,000 1,000
RESTORATION, LA........................

MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE, MD.......................... 1,200 1,200
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND 5,000 5,000
VA.....................................
POPLAR ISLAND, MD....................... 18,400 18,400

MASSACHUSETTS

MUDDY RIVER, MA......................... 8,000 8,000

MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO..... 3,012 3,012
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS................. 11,000 11,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND 49,690 49,690
MISSOURI RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO AND IL
MONARCH--CHESTERFIELD, MO............... 2,000 2,000

NEW JERSEY

CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ.... 200 200
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, AND 20,000 20,000
DE.....................................
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, 500 500
NJ.....................................
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, 400 400
NJ.....................................
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB- 11,000 11,000
BASIN, NJ..............................

NEW YORK

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY.. 300 300
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND 49,000 49,000
NJ.....................................

NORTH CAROLINA

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC................... 6,800 6,800
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC.................. 8,000 8,000

NORTH DAKOTA

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND........ 4,000 4,000

OHIO

BOLIVAR DAM, OH (DAM SAFETY)............ 32,500 32,500
DOVER DAM, MUSKINGUM RIVER, OH (DAM 3,750 3,750
SAFETY)................................

OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE, OK......................... 16,300 16,300

OREGON

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA.. 1,000 1,000
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR 250 250
AND WA.................................
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR...................... 1,183 1,183
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM 7,080 7,080
RESTORATION, OR AND WA.................

PENNSYLVANIA

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA...... 21,500 21,500
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3, AND 4, MONONGAHELA 1,960 1,960
RIVER, PA..............................
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING)...... 1,000 1,000

PUERTO RICO

RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR.................... 17,250 17,250

SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC................... 226 226

TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.................... 36,500 36,500

TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX................ 2,500 2,500
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN (WHARTON/ 3,000 3,000
ONION), TX.............................

VIRGINIA

ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS 300 300
AREA, VA...............................

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, 101,553 101,553
AND ID.................................
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA...... 8,500 8,500
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE 2,000 2,000
COMPENSATION, WA.......................
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA. 600 600

WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV...................... 30,000 30,000

WISCONSIN

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.................... 1,900 1,900
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES...... 1,255,140 1,256,420

REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION.... .............. 20,000
FLOOD CONTROL................... .............. 50,000
SHORE PROTECTION................ .............. 30,000
NAVIGATION.......................... .............. 30,000
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND .............. 40,000
PROJECTS.......................
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES... .............. 10,000
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR .............. 5,000
COMPLIANCE.....................
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE .............. 50,000
PROJECTS.......................
HYDROPOWER PROJECTS............. .............. 2,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM........... .............. 4,000
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT
REQUIRING SPECIFIC LEGISLATION:........
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 6,100 8,000
(SECTION 206)......................
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL 5,000 7,000
(SECTIONS 204, 207, 933)...........
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) 7,900 13,000
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT 500 1,300
(SECTION 111)......................
NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107).... .............. 3,700
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR 9,500 10,500
IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
(SECTION 1135)....................
SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103)...... .............. 2,500
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY 45,000 45,000
CORRECTION PROGRAM.....................
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION................. 19,000 19,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD 60 60
EXPENSE................................
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS 800 800
EXPENSE................................
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 1,000 1,000
106-457)...............................
RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES.......... .............. 1,000
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL.......................... 94,860 357,860

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.................... .............. -72,280
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 1,350,000 1,542,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The administration
budget request for this item that was proposed in the GI
account has been moved to this account where it has been funded
since fiscal year 2009.
Muddy River, Massachusetts.--Funds recommended for this
project may be used for both flood risk management and
environmental restoration.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps has
ongoing, authorized construction projects that would cost tens
of billions of dollars to complete, yet the administration
continues to request a mere fraction of the funding necessary
to complete those projects. The Committee recommends additional
funds to continue ongoing projects and activities to enhance
the Nation's economic growth and international competitiveness.
The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that either was
not included in the administration's request or was
inadequately budgeted. None of these funds shall be used for
projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. Ongoing
construction projects that are actively progressing and can
utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for these
additional funds. This includes periodic beach renourishments.
Funding associated with each category may be allocated to
any eligible project within that category; funding associated
with each subcategory may be allocated only to eligible
projects within that subcategory. The list of subcategories is
not meant to be exhaustive. Priority in allocating additional
funding should consider the following: number of jobs created
directly by the funded activity; the benefits of the funded
work to the national economy; ability to obligate the funds
allocated within the fiscal year, including consideration of
the ability of the non-Federal sponsor to provide any required
cost-share; ability to complete the project, separable element,
or project phase within the funds allocated; for flood and
storm damage reduction, population at risk and economic
activity or public infrastructure at risk; and for navigation,
number of jobs or level of economic activity to be supported by
completion of the project, separable element, or project phase.
A major factor to be considered for prioritizing inland
waterway funding is the economic impact on the local, regional,
and national economy if the project is not funded. In addition,
priority should be given to discrete elements of work that can
be completed within the funding provided in this line item.
For environmental infrastructure assistance the Committee
recognizes that these authorities were originally created to
assist communities that were unable to compete well in the
State-wide revolving fund authorities under the jurisdiction of
the Environmental Protection Agency. While the Committee
believes it appropriate to prioritize those projects with the
greater economic impact, it recognizes that such rigid criteria
may exclude rural underserved communities with greater needs.
The Committee encourages the Corps to reserve at least 15
percent of these funds for communities that are rural by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's definition and in counties or
parishes where the average family income is below the national
poverty level.
The three new project starts directed as part of the work
plan shall be funded from the appropriate additional funding
line-item. The Committee intends only seven new construction
starts in fiscal year 2014.
It should be understood that the administration may
substitute new starts from their budget request if it appears
they cannot or don't meet the criteria above or the additional
criteria below. The administration shall select the three new
construction projects from the primary mission areas of
navigation, flood risk management and shore protection. When
considering which new starts to include in the work plan, the
applicable criteria previously discussed should be considered.
Additional factors that should be considered for all new starts
include: the outyear budget impacts of the proposed new starts;
the cost sharing sponsor's ability and willingness to promptly
provide their cash contribution (if any) as well as required
lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal
areas; the sponsor's willingness and ability to execute a
project partnership agreement during the fiscal year period
covered by this act; and the benefits of the project to the
local population.
Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
work plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed.
The Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work
plan showing all the ongoing construction projects that were
considered eligible and could have used funding for fiscal year
2014 and the reasons why these items were considered as being
less competitive for inclusion in the work plan.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee has
recommended funding for this program which is the only
nationwide R&D program to address invasive aquatic plants. The
Committee urges the Corps to continue to support cost-shared
aquatic plant management programs.
Continuing Authorities Program [CAP].--The Continuing
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific
authorizing legislation) includes projects for flood control
(section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline protection
(section 14), beach erosion control (section 103), mitigation
of shore damages (section 111), navigation projects (section
107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic ecosystem
restoration (section 206), beneficial uses of dredged material
(section 204), and project modifications for improvement of the
environment (section 1135). The Committee has chosen to fund
eight of the nine sections of the CAP program rather than only
the five sections proposed in the budget request. The Committee
has not funded section 208 as it believes these projects can
easily be accommodated under the authority of section 205. The
Committee believes that CAP funds should be expended for the
CAP sections for which they were appropriated and should be
executed as quickly as possible. The Committee continues to
believe that the various sections of the CAP program provide a
useful tool for the Corps to undertake small localized projects
without being encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization
phases typical of most Corps projects.
The Committee has included a total of $50,000,000 spread
over the eight CAP sections for work in fiscal year 2014. The
Committee urges the administration to execute the program laid
out by the Committee and include funding for this program in
future budgets.
Continuing Authorities Program Direction.--For each CAP
section, available funds shall be allocated utilizing this
sequence of steps until the funds are exhausted:
--capability-level funds for ongoing projects that have
executed cost-sharing agreements for the applicable
phase;
--capability-level funds for projects that are ready for
execution of new cost-sharing agreements for the
applicable phase and for which Corps headquarters
authorizes execution of the agreements;
--funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other projects
previously funded for the applicable phase but not
ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements; and
--funds as permitted by Corps policies, for projects not
previously funded for the applicable phase.
Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate
Field Operating Agency [FOA] for projects requested by that
FOA. If the FOA finds that the study/project for which funds
were requested cannot go forward, the funds are to be returned
to Corps headquarters to be reallocated based on the nationwide
priority listing. In no case should the FOA retain these funds
for use on a different project than the one for which the funds
were requested without the explicit approval of the Corps'
headquarters.
Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for
each CAP section, funds shall be allocated to the projects in
that section that rank high according to the following factors:
high overall performance based on outputs; high percent
fiscally complete; and high unobligated carry-in. Section 14
funds shall be allocated to the projects that address the most
significant risks and adverse consequences, irrespective of
phase or previous funding history.
The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending
and terminating inactive projects. Suspended projects shall not
be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in
writing its support for the project and establishes its
willingness and capability to execute its project
responsibilities.
In order to provide a mix of studies, design and
construction within each CAP section, the Corps is directed to
divide the funding generally 80/20 between the Design and
Implementation and the Feasibility phases within each
authority. The Chief of Engineers shall provide a report to the
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of
this act detailing how funds will be distributed to the
individual items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal
year. The Chief shall also provide an annual report at the end
of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the backlog
of projects. The report should include the completions and
terminations as well as progress of ongoing work.
The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects
in all sections as funding allows. New projects may be
initiated after an assessment is made that such projects can be
funded over time based on historical averages of the
appropriation for that section and after prior approval by the
Committees on Appropriations.
Restoration of Abandoned Mines.--The Corps is directed to
work closely with those Federal land management agencies,
Western States and tribes with abandoned non-coal mine sites so
that the greatest number of those sites presenting threats to
public health and safety can be addressed in a cost-effective
manner.

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

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $251,496,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 279,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 300,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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

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

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

CONSTRUCTION

BAYOU METO BASIN, AR.................... 5,000 5,000
GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR................ 22,000 22,000
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, 58,015 58,015
MO, AND TN.............................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, 22,829 22,829
LA, MS, MO, AND TN.....................
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA................... 3,500 3,500
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.. 1,750 1,750
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION............ 113,094 113,094

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, 76,978 76,978
MO, AND TN.............................
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR...... 33 33
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR....... 250 250
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR.... 287 287
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR.... 193 193
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, 8,479 8,479
LA, MS, MO, AND TN.....................
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO............ 5,900 5,900
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, 1,839 1,839
AR AND LA..............................
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR............... 1,142 1,142
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL....... 170 170
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY....... 100 100
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA................... 9,747 9,747
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.. 1,521 1,521
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA..... 69 69
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA...... 48 48
BONNET CARRE, LA........................ 2,188 2,188
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA....... 1,007 1,007
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA.. 456 456
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA............ 472 472
OLD RIVER, LA........................... 8,118 8,118
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA... 2,414 2,414
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS................... 24 24
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS....... 130 130
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS.................... 42 42
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS......... 5,354 5,354
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS.... 185 185
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS.............. 4,777 4,777
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS.............. 788 788
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS........... 5,164 5,164
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS.............. 1,273 1,273
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS............ 6,493 6,493
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS............ 944 944
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M. WHITTINGTON AUX 375 375
CHAN, MS...............................
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS... 526 526
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS............. 714 714
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO....... 200 200
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO..................... 4,760 4,760
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN....... 80 80
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN....... 1,803 1,803
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND 155,043 155,043
MAINTENANCE......................

REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
DREDGING............................ .............. 5,000
FLOOD CONTROL....................... .............. 11,000
WATER SUPPLY AND RELATED AUTHORIZED .............. 13,000
PURPOSES...........................
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES........... .............. 5,000
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA...... 9,700 9,700
MAPPING................................. 1,063 1,063
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS......... 10,763 44,763

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE...... .............. -13,000
-------------------------------
TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND 279,000 300,000
TRIBUTARIES......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee
recommendation includes additional funds above the budget
request to continue ongoing studies, projects or maintenance.
The Committee recommends that these funds be used for flood
control, navigation, water supply, ground water protection,
waterfowl management, bank stabilization, erosion and
sedimentation control, and environmental restoration work. The
intent of these funds is for ongoing work primarily along the
Mississippi River tributaries that either was not included in
the administration's request or was inadequately budgeted.
While this additional funding is shown under remaining items,
the Corps should utilize these funds in any applicable phase of
work. None of these funds may be used to start new projects or
activities.
The Committee directs that priority in allocating these
funds be given to completing or accelerating ongoing work which
will enhance the region and Nation's economic development, job
growth and international competitiveness, or is located in
areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. Within 45
days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall provide to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a work plan
delineating how these funds are to be distributed. The
Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work plan
showing all the studies and construction projects that were
considered eligible and could have used funding for fiscal year
2013 and the reasons why these items were considered as being
less competitive for inclusion in the work plan.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $3,228,176,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 2,588,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,700,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes emergency funding of $821,000,000 in the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-2).

This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and
related activities at the water resources projects that the
Corps operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists
of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other
facilities, as authorized in the various river and harbor,
flood control, and water resources development acts. Related
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of
completed projects where appropriate, removal of sunken
vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce
statistics.
Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory
gets more expensive every year; however, it is consistently
underfunded. If this trend continues, the Corps will not be
able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its
projects. The Committee is pleased that the budget request
increases spending from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by
$42,000,000 over the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The
Committee has increased funding in this account in order to
provide $1,000,000,000 in expenditures from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund for fiscal year 2014.
The Committee has maintained its tradition of supporting
what the budget request terms as ``low use harbors and
waterways.'' The Committee recognizes the importance of these
facilities and will continue to provide funding for them. The
Committee understands that the O&M budget fluctuates from year
to year due to periodic maintenance dredging requirements,
however, the general trend should be for this budget to
increase. Nearly 75 percent of the O&M budget consists of labor
and dredging costs in most years. Labor costs rarely decrease
for the Corps as it takes roughly the same amount of manpower
to operate Corps projects on a yearly basis. That means that
when the budget request is reduced, the only areas available to
reduce are dredging and maintenance items.
The Corps is to be commended for managing to keep as much
of their infrastructure operable as they have with the O&M
budgets that have been put forward and enacted.
The budget request and the Committee recommendation are
shown on the following table:

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

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, 250 250
AL.....................................
ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL................. 16,327 16,327
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.. 25,436 25,436
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.......... 5,469 5,469
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL....... 100 100
MOBILE HARBOR, AL....................... 27,000 27,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL........... 148 148
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE 1,820 1,820
MITIGATION, AL AND MS..................
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS. 23,431 23,431
WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA 8,562 8,562

ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK.................... 9,431 9,431
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK................... 2,921 2,921
COOK INLET SHOALS, AK................... 6,188 6,188
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK................... 1,080 1,080
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................ 487 487
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK....... 155 155
LOWELL CREEK TUNNELL (SEWARD) AK........ 150 150
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK.................... 400 400
NOME HARBOR, AK......................... 1,244 1,244
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK........... 853 853

ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ.......................... 1,103 1,103
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ....... 101 101
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ.................... 907 907
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ..... 53 53
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ................... 319 319

ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR......................... 7,187 7,187
BLAKELY MT. DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR...... 7,938 7,938
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.................. 1,909 1,909
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR.................... 11,564 11,564
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR............. 7,750 7,750
DEGRAY LAKE, AR......................... 5,637 5,637
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR........................ 1,902 1,902
DIERKS LAKE, AR......................... 1,586 1,586
GILLHAM LAKE, AR........................ 1,735 1,735
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR................... 7,405 7,405
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR...... 26 26
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR....... 517 517
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION 28,558 28,558
SYSTEM, AR.............................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR....................... 2,706 2,706
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR........... 5,841 5,841
NIMROD LAKE, AR......................... 2,016 2,016
NORFORK LAKE, AR........................ 8,148 8,148
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR...................... 15 15
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA.... 9,786 9,786
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR...... 6,287 6,287
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR........... 2 2
WHITE RIVER, AR......................... 31 31
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR.................... 3 3

CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA.................... 2,564 2,564
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA....... 2,052 2,052
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA... 3,277 3,277
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND 5,151 5,151
CHANNEL, CA............................
FARMINGTON DAM, CA...................... 490 490
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA............ 2,067 2,067
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA............. 2,730 2,730
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 10 10
PROJECTS, CA...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA....... 3,987 3,987
ISABELLA LAKE, CA....................... 1,282 1,282
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA..... 4,809 4,809
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA.... 6,440 6,440
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA............... 400 400
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA.................... 353 353
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA.................... 2,353 2,353
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA...................... 2,593 2,593
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA 1,937 1,937
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA...................... 22,069 22,069
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA.................... 1,600 1,600
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA...................... 3,593 3,593
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA........... 1,663 1,663
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA................. 2,750 2,750
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA..................... 7,000 7,000
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30-FOOT PROJECT), CA.. 1,500 1,500
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS 1,437 1,437
CONTROL), CA...........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, 200 200
CA.....................................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, 864 864
CA.....................................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT 3,100 3,100
REMOVAL)...............................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA................ 3,025 3,025
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA. 5,573 5,573
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA 750 750
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA............... 3,865 3,865
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA................ 2,665 2,665
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA..... 1,435 1,435
SUCCESS LAKE, CA........................ 2,563 2,563
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA.................. 2,026 2,026
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA........... 2,417 2,417
VENTURA HARBOR, CA...................... 4,071 4,071
YUBA RIVER, CA.......................... 301 301

COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO..................... 912 912
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO...................... 1,847 1,847
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO................... 1,947 1,947
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 10 10
PROJECTS, CO...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO....... 322 322
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO............... 2,668 2,668
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO..... 608 608
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO....................... 1,680 1,680

CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT..................... 666 666
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT................ 744 744
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.................. 411 411
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT...................... 1,067 1,067
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 15 15
PROJECTS, CT...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT....... 268 268
LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT.............. 500 500
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT............... 1,081 1,081
NEW HAVEN HARBOR, CT.................... 8,600 8,600
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT............... 434 434
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT........... 850 850
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.......... 679 679
THOMASTON DAM, CT....................... 821 821
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.................. 678 678

DELAWARE

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE....... 40 40
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO 18,918 18,918
CHESAPEAKE BAY.........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE........... 200 200
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE................... 5,405 5,405

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC....... 115 115
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT 875 875
REMOVAL)...............................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC........... 25 25
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC................... 25 25

FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL.................... 4,398 4,398
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL........ 14,791 14,791
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL AND AL.. 34 34
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL....... 1,500 1,500
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO 250 250
MIAMI, FL..............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL................. 9,014 9,014
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE 8,117 8,117
SEMINOLE, FL, AL, AND GA...............
MANATEE HARBOR, FL...................... 3,365 3,365
MIAMI HARBOR, FL........................ 4,355 4,355
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL................. 2,467 2,467
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL................... 2,500 2,500
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL.................. 2,070 2,070
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL.............. 300 300
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL........... 1,465 1,465
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL........... 3,500 3,500
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL..... 35 35
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL. 9,053 9,053
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................ 10,400 10,400

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA...................... 8,165 8,165
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT 1,324 1,324
RIVERS, GA, AL, AND FL.................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA...... 164 164
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA.................... 5,311 5,311
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA... 8,971 8,971
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA................ 8,128 8,128
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC................ 10,728 10,728
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 15 15
PROJECTS, GA...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA....... 180 180
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC........ 9,939 9,939
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA........... 161 161
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND 8,707 8,707
SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA..................... 24,065 24,065
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA........ 202 202
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL...... 7,518 7,518

HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI................ 434 434
HILO HARBOR, HI......................... 206 206
HONOLULU HARBOR, HI..................... 206 206
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI....... 885 885
KAHULUI HARBOR, HI...................... 206 206
NAWILIWILI HARBOR, HI................... 206 206
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI........... 683 683

IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID.................... 1,244 1,244
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.......... 4,802 4,802
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID....... 358 358
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID..................... 2,383 2,383
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID..... 580 580

ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN..... 4,912 4,912
CARLYLE LAKE, IL........................ 5,542 5,542
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL...................... 2,264 2,264
CHICAGO RIVER, IL....................... 680 680
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL............... 312 312
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND 39,581 39,581
IN.....................................
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND 3,891 3,891
IN.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 50 50
PROJECTS, IL...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL....... 2,556 2,556
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.......... 1,928 1,928
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL............. 739 739
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL.................... 5,711 5,711
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER 63,739 63,739
AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION), IL......
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER 26,319 26,319
AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION), IL......
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL........... 106 106
REND LAKE, IL........................... 5,581 5,581
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 706 706
WATERS, IL.............................
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL..................... 472 472

INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN..................... 1,791 1,791
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN............... 2,079 2,079
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN.................... 1,175 1,175
CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN................ 1,798 1,798
INDIANA HARBOR, IN...................... 10,973 10,973
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN....... 1,008 1,008
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN................. 1,310 1,310
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN................... 1,466 1,466
MONROE LAKE, IN......................... 1,148 1,148
PATOKA LAKE, IN......................... 1,140 1,140
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN........... 185 185
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN...................... 1,241 1,241
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 135 135
WATERS, IN.............................

IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA..................... 4,368 4,368
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA....... 656 656
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, 8,384 8,384
IA, KS, MO, AND NE.....................
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE 2,200 2,200
RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, AND
SD.....................................
RATHBUN LAKE, IA........................ 3,192 3,192
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA...... 4,721 4,721
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA.................... 11,330 11,330

KANSAS

BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO............ .............. ..............
CLINTON LAKE, KS........................ 2,453 2,453
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.................. 1,859 1,859
EL DORADO LAKE, KS...................... 1,011 1,011
ELK CITY LAKE, KS....................... 1,107 1,107
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS..................... 1,192 1,192
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS...................... 1,129 1,129
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS....... 983 983
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS...... 1,565 1,565
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS...................... 1,431 1,431
MARION LAKE, KS......................... 2,081 2,081
MELVERN LAKE, KS........................ 2,173 2,173
MILFORD LAKE, KS........................ 2,375 2,375
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS...... 1,382 1,382
PERRY LAKE, KS.......................... 2,323 2,323
POMONA LAKE, KS......................... 2,004 2,004
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS..... 355 355
TORONTO LAKE, KS........................ 896 896
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS................... 2,093 2,093
WILSON LAKE, KS......................... 2,343 2,343

KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN. 9,828 9,828
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY................... 2,671 2,671
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY.................... 1,829 1,829
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY....................... 1,712 1,712
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY..................... 1,861 1,861
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY....................... 1,025 1,025
DEWEY LAKE, KY.......................... 1,754 1,754
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY........ 15 15
FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY 19 19
AND IN.................................
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY....................... 2,019 2,019
GRAYSON LAKE, KY........................ 1,498 1,498
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY............. 2,055 2,055
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY.................... 2,733 2,733
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY....... 1,033 1,033
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY...................... 10 10
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY................... 1,940 1,940
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY................... 1,089 1,089
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY.. 250 250
NOLIN LAKE, KY.......................... 2,781 2,781
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, 43,435 43,435
AND OH.................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, 5,500 5,500
IN, OH, PA, AND WV.....................
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY.................... 1,179 1,179
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY........... 2 2
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY.................... 2,693 2,693
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY................... 1,344 1,344
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY..... 8,467 8,467
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY..................... 1,135 1,135

LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, 8,912 8,912
BOEUF AND BLACK, LA....................
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA.............. 264 264
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA.............. 1,204 1,204
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP 1,053 1,053
WATERWAY, LA...........................
BAYOU PIERRE, LA........................ 23 23
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA............. 63 63
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA..... 15 15
BAYOU TECHE, LA......................... 165 165
CADDO LAKE, LA.......................... 207 207
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............ 16,240 16,240
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA.................... 1,695 1,695
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.......... 24,524 24,524
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA.............. 1,467 1,467
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA....... 1,174 1,174
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA........ 8,795 8,795
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA.............. 15 15
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA................. 4 4
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA..................... 1,370 1,370
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA. 2,177 2,177
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE 84,074 84,074
GULF OF MEXICO, LA.....................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA........... 59 59
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA........... 200 200
WALLACE LAKE, LA........................ 222 222
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA.... 17 17
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO 66 66
BAYOU DULAC, LA........................

MAINE

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME............ 1,050 1,050
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 15 15
PROJECTS, ME...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME....... 95 95
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME........... 1,100 1,100
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 25 25
WATERS, ME.............................

MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), 22,083 22,083
MD.....................................
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL).... 325 325
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV......... 150 150
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD....... 135 135
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV....... 1,913 1,913
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD........... 450 450
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD..... 62 62
WICOMICO RIVER, MD...................... 1,500 1,500

MASSACHUSETTS

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA..................... 785 785
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA...................... 788 788
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA.................... 600 600
CAPE COD CANAL, MA...................... 9,834 9,834
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE 301 301
AREA, MA...............................
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA................... 315 315
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA................. 549 549
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.................. 629 629
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 15 15
PROJECTS, MA...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA....... 306 306
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA..................... 673 673
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA.................... 762 762
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET 434 434
HURRICANE BARRIER,.....................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA........... 900 900
TULLY LAKE, MA.......................... 793 793
WEST HILL DAM, MA....................... 700 700
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA...................... 606 606

MICHIGAN

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI.......... 173 173
DETROIT RIVER, MI....................... 5,814 5,814
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.................. 658 658
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI...................... 1,800 1,800
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI....... 230 230
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI................... 50 50
MONROE HARBOR, MI....................... 1,000 1,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI........... 670 670
SAGINAW RIVER, MI....................... 3,837 3,837
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI..................... 25 25
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI..................... 649 649
ST. MARYS RIVER, MI..................... 29,403 29,403
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 2,653 2,653
WATERS, MI.............................

MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE--WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND 242 242
SD.....................................
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI....... 5,987 5,987
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN....... 484 484
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN 622 622
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN..................... 232 232
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER 53,014 53,014
AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION), MN......
ORWELL LAKE, MN......................... 441 441
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN........... 87 87
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.................. 149 149
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI 3,344 3,344
RIVER, MN..............................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 462 462
WATERS, MN.............................

MISSISSIPPI

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS............... 1 1
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.......... 255 255
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS..................... 3,082 3,082
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS....... 135 135
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS................ 34 34
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS...................... 1,650 1,650
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS................... 7,294 7,294
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA.................. 162 162
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS........... 154 154
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS..................... 10 10
YAZOO RIVER, MS......................... 23 23

MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO............... 12 12
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, 6,501 6,501
MO.....................................
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO..................... 3,579 3,579
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO.... 9,165 9,165
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO....... 1,557 1,557
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO............. 927 927
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO.................... 1,007 1,007
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND 40,303 40,303
MISSOURI RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO AND IL
NEW MADRID COUNTY HARBOR, MO............ 23 23
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO................. 2,297 2,297
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO........... 14 14
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO..... 205 205
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO..................... 1,587 1,587
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI 1 1
RIVER, MO..............................
STOCKTON LAKE, MO....................... 4,609 4,609
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR.............. 8,585 8,585

MONTANA

FT. PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT............... 5,540 5,540
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT....... 177 177
LIBBY DAM, MT........................... 1,812 1,812
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT..... 243 243

NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, 9,352 9,352
NE AND SD..............................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.................. 12,609 12,609
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE....... 449 449
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO 92 92
SIOUX CITY, IA.........................
PAPILLION CREEK, NE..................... 938 938
SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE......... 1,075 1,075

NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV....... 73 73
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA............ 1,061 1,061
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV...... 337 337

NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH...................... 733 733
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH............... 572 572
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.................. 863 863
HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH............ 1,402 1,402
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH....... 61 61
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH.................... 664 664
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH........... 250 250
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH................. 663 663

NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ...................... 420 420
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ................... 375 375
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ............ 15 15
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, 19,745 19,745
NJ, PA, AND DE.........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 5 5
PROJECTS, NJ...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ....... 466 466
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ..................... 315 315
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ.... 260 260
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC 5,000 5,000
RIVERS, NJ.............................
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ. 605 605
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ........... 1,797 1,797
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ 220 220
RARITAN RIVER, NJ....................... 100 100
SHARK RIVER, NJ......................... 500 500
SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ...... 20 20

NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM......................... 2,772 2,772
COCHITI LAKE, NM........................ 3,241 3,241
CONCHAS LAKE, NM........................ 2,143 2,143
GALISTEO DAM, NM........................ 822 822
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 30 30
PROJECTS, NM...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM....... 676 676
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM.................... 1,533 1,533
RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES 2,500 2,500
COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM..............
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM............. 1,280 1,280
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM..... 547 547
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM...................... 735 735
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL 1,438 1,438
STUDY, NM..............................

NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY......................... 576 576
ARKPORT DAM, NY......................... 434 434
BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY..... 300 300
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, 1,770 1,770
NY.....................................
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY...................... 1,420 1,420
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY.................. 400 400
EAST RIVER, NY.......................... 100 100
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY................. 220 220
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY.................... 682 682
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY................ 250 250
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)................ 2,100 2,100
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O AND C).............. 2,100 2,100
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 15 15
PROJECTS, NY...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY....... 1,526 1,526
JAMAICA BAY, NY......................... 100 100
MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY.................... 20 20
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY.................... 4,014 4,014
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY.... 5,869 5,869
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND 100 100
NJ.....................................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY..................... 6,740 6,740
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT 9,300 9,300
REMOVAL)...............................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF 1,100 1,100
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY........... 2,089 2,089
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY.................... 20 20
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL 800 800
PROJECTS, NY...........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 590 590
WATERS, NY.............................
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY.................. 710 710

NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC...... 1,600 1,600
B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC...... 1,647 1,647
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC.... 485 485
FALLS LAKE, NC.......................... 1,767 1,767
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC....... 261 261
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC............. 1,200 1,200
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, 150 150
NC.....................................
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC................ 5,357 5,357
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC........... 700 700
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC................... 300 300
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC.................. 300 300
W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC..... 3,372 3,372
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC................... 17,803 17,803

NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN HALEY, ND........................ 224 224
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND........ 12,327 12,327
HOMME LAKE, ND.......................... 236 236
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND....... 384 384
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND..... 1,233 1,233
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND....................... 1,186 1,186
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND..... 247 247
SOURIS RIVER, ND........................ 344 344
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 32 32
WATERS, ND.............................

OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH..................... 1,508 1,508
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH.................... 1,030 1,030
BERLIN LAKE, OH......................... 1,925 1,925
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH................... 1,781 1,781
CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH............... 1,847 1,847
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH.................... 7,345 7,345
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH..................... 1,030 1,030
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH..................... 1,696 1,696
DELAWARE LAKE, OH....................... 1,693 1,693
DILLON LAKE, OH......................... 1,513 1,513
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH..................... 2,000 2,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH....... 694 694
LORAIN HARBOR, OH....................... 1,350 1,350
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.. 41 41
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH. 1,127 1,127
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH................. 1,126 1,126
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH............... 8,639 8,639
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH.... 301 301
OHIO-MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH...... 1,849 1,849
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH.................... 1,446 1,446
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH........... 305 305
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.. 35 35
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH..................... 1,440 1,440
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 249 249
WATERS, OH.............................
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH....................... 5,871 5,871
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH..................... 995 995
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH........ 939 939
WILLIAM H. HARSHA LAKE, OH.............. 1,226 1,226

OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK........................ 623 623
BIRCH LAKE, OK.......................... 725 725
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK..................... 5,704 5,704
CANTON LAKE, OK......................... 2,193 2,193
COPAN LAKE, OK.......................... 869 869
EUFAULA LAKE, OK........................ 6,496 6,496
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK.................... 6,560 6,560
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK.................... 883 883
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK.............. 376 376
HEYBURN LAKE, OK........................ 596 596
HUGO LAKE, OK........................... 2,866 2,866
HULAH LAKE, OK.......................... 875 875
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK....... 180 180
KAW LAKE, OK............................ 3,463 3,463
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK....................... 4,890 4,890
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION 5,374 5,374
SYSTEM, OK.............................
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK........................ 4,946 4,946
OPTIMA LAKE, OK......................... 44 44
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE 146 146
CHEROKEES, OK..........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK..................... 1,279 1,279
ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND 7,442 7,442
RESERVOIR, OK..........................
SARDIS LAKE, OK......................... 1,412 1,412
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK..... 1,000 1,000
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK....................... 1,866 1,866
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK................ 9,395 9,395
WAURIKA LAKE, OK........................ 1,340 1,340
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.......... 5,026 5,026
WISTER LAKE, OK......................... 1,800 1,800

OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR...................... 1,250 1,250
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR..................... 571 571
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA...... 7,477 7,477
CHETCO RIVER, OR........................ 21 21
COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS 34,517 34,517
BELOW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLAND, OR..
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA.. 18,217 18,217
COOS BAY, OR............................ 6,069 6,069
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.................. 1,470 1,470
COUGAR LAKE, OR......................... 2,002 2,002
DETROIT LAKE, OR........................ 1,083 1,083
DORENA LAKE, OR......................... 1,070 1,070
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR..................... 2,259 2,259
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR..................... 1,999 1,999
GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR........... 2,392 2,392
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR.................... 1,327 1,327
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 20 20
PROJECTS, OR...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR....... 578 578
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA........ 4,502 4,502
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR.................. 9,345 9,345
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR..................... 3,156 3,156
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.......... 6,909 6,909
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR........... 400 400
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR..... 104 104
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR....................... 32 32
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 5,794 5,794
WATERS, OR.............................
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR 60 60
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR.... 81 81
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR................... 681 681
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR.............. 2,000 2,000

PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA..................... 4,892 4,892
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA.................... 699 699
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA............... 274 274
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA..................... 1,250 1,250
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA..................... 2,841 2,841
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA................ 1,393 1,393
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA..................... 1,970 1,970
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.................. 1,352 1,352
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA................... 803 803
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO 4,735 4,735
TRENTON, NJ............................
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA...... 1,194 1,194
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA............ 814 814
FRANCIS E. WALTER DAM, PA............... 954 954
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, 320 320
PA.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 5 5
PROJECTS, PA...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA....... 1,213 1,213
JOHNSTOWN, PA........................... 64 64
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.. 1,325 1,325
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA..................... 2,723 2,723
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA................. 1,168 1,168
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA................... 11,035 11,035
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV 30,905 30,905
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND 359 359
WV.....................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA........... 170 170
PROMPTON LAKE, PA....................... 475 475
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA........................ 34 34
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA....................... 3,717 3,717
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA..... 45 45
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA................. 1,718 1,718
STILLWATER LAKE, PA..................... 425 425
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 103 103
WATERS, PA.............................
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA................. 2,199 2,199
TIONESTA LAKE, PA....................... 1,939 1,939
UNION CITY LAKE, PA..................... 450 450
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA................. 1,102 1,102
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA................ 723 723
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD...... 2,147 2,147

RHODE ISLAND

FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI 1,750 1,750
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 15 15
PROJECTS, RI...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI....... 45 45
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI........... 350 350
WOONSOCKET, RI.......................... 759 759

SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC................... 14,825 14,825
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC..... 5,600 5,600
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC....... 66 66
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC........... 875 875

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD........... 10,165 10,165
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD..................... 377 377
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD............. 1,116 1,116
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD. 10,405 10,405
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD....... 146 146
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN................ 554 554
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND.......... 12,796 12,796

TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.................... 7,285 7,285
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN............... 7,011 7,011
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN...... 6,992 6,992
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN.................... 7,295 7,295
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN....... 96 96
J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN... 4,822 4,822
NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, 10 10
LAKE COUNTY, TN........................
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN............ 9,845 9,845
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN........... 2 2
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN..................... 22,675 22,675
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN................... 219 219

TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX........................ 1,285 1,285
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE 1,591 1,591
CONTROL--AREA VI.......................
BARDWELL LAKE, TX....................... 1,850 1,850
BELTON LAKE, TX......................... 3,613 3,613
BENBROOK LAKE, TX....................... 2,774 2,774
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX................ 3,200 3,200
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX....... 2,884 2,884
CANYON LAKE, TX......................... 2,978 2,978
CEDAR BAYOU, TX......................... 100 100
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX............. 400 400
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX......... 7,250 7,250
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX............ 11,227 11,227
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, 43 43
TX.....................................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, 3,400 3,400
TX.....................................
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX..................... 8,300 8,300
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX........ 6,300 6,300
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX........... 3,200 3,200
GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX............... 2,800 2,800
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX................ 2,133 2,133
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX...................... 2,641 2,641
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.......... 28,885 28,885
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX.................... 1,652 1,652
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX................ 30,150 30,150
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX....... 1,813 1,813
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX.................... 1,758 1,758
JOE POOL LAKE, TX....................... 1,008 1,008
LAKE KEMP, TX........................... 285 285
LAVON LAKE, TX.......................... 3,114 3,114
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX...................... 3,277 3,277
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX.............. 5,200 5,200
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX.................. 3,153 3,153
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE 2,271 2,271
GEORGETOWN, TX.........................
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX............. 957 957
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX...................... 1,004 1,004
PROCTOR LAKE, TX........................ 2,438 2,438
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX........... 325 325
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX.................... 1,412 1,412
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX.............. 16,050 16,050
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX....... 7,020 7,020
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX..... 224 224
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX..................... 3,090 3,090
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX............... 2,013 2,013
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX............. 4,300 4,300
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX... 100 100
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX. 3,093 3,093
WACO LAKE, TX........................... 3,404 3,404
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX.................... 2,306 2,306
WHITNEY LAKE, TX........................ 8,557 8,557
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.......... 4,511 4,511

UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT....... 52 52
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT..... 541 541

VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN, VT....................... 1,003 1,003
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT....... 220 220
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY.... 30 30
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT................. 895 895
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT.............. 800 800
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT...................... 804 804
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT................... 870 870

VIRGINIA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA. 2,160 2,160
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA. 1,170 1,170
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.................. 710 710
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA....... 2,262 2,262
HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS 1,458 1,458
HARBOR, VA (DRIF.......................
HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF 88 88
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 15 15
PROJECTS, VA...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA....... 359 359
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA................. 3,801 3,801
JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC............ 10,895 10,895
JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA. 2,128 2,128
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA..................... 400 400
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA...................... 12,426 12,426
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA...... 547 547
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA....................... 5,190 5,190
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA........... 1,368 1,368
RUDEE INLET, VA......................... 400 400
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, VA... 130 130
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA... 100 100

WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA.................... 637 637
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND 878 878
THE DALLES, OR.........................
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, 3,350 3,350
AND ID.................................
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.. 1,749 1,749
GRAYS HARBOR, WA........................ 9,965 9,965
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA................... 3,296 3,296
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA............. 4,574 4,574
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 53 53
PROJECTS, WA...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA....... 1,093 1,093
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.......... 9,416 9,416
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA........... 2,710 2,710
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.......... 9,621 9,621
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA....... 2,480 2,480
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA..................... 2,423 2,423
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA. 260 260
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA.................... 3,543 3,543
OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA...................... 603 603
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA........... 606 606
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA.... 1,075 1,075
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA..... 500 500
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA...................... 110 110
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA................. 280 280
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 78 78
WATERS, WA.............................
TACOMA HARBOR, WA....................... 1,894 1,894
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA.............. 148 148
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR...... 3,150 3,150

WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV..................... 1,472 1,472
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV...................... 1,914 1,914
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV..................... 2,564 2,564
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV...................... 2,310 2,310
ELKINS, WV.............................. 56 56
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV....... 461 461
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV........ 11,528 11,528
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY, AND 32,046 32,046
OH.....................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY, 3,113 3,113
AND OH.................................
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV..................... 2,457 2,457
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV.............. 1,184 1,184
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV................... 3,348 3,348
SUTTON LAKE, WV......................... 2,328 2,328
TYGART LAKE, WV......................... 1,839 1,839

WISCONSIN

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI................ 734 734
FOX RIVER, WI........................... 2,005 2,005
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.................... 3,367 3,367
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI....... 61 61
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI.................... 700 700
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI........... 288 288
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN 20 20
SHIP CANAL, WI.........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 540 540
WATERS, WI.............................

WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL 10 10
PROJECTS, WY...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY....... 123 123
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY................. 2,374 2,374
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY..... 121 121
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL,......................... 2,411,388 2,411,388

REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:....
NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE.............. .............. 10,000
DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL... .............. 95,000
INLAND WATERWAYS................ .............. 23,000
SMALL REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE .............. 30,000
NAVIGATION.....................
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES........... .............. 5,000
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH....... 690 690
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND 4,750 4,750
EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT...................
BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M
BUSINESS PROGRAMS:.....................
STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM......... 1,000 1,000
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT 4,000 4,000
PROGRAM............................
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 1,650 1,650
PROGRAM............................
OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION... 392 392
COASTAL AND OCEAN DATA SYSTEM........... 3,000 5,000
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM.......... 2,700 2,700
RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS 5,000 5,000
PROJECTS...............................
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION).... 4,500 4,500
DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE.......... 11,840 11,840
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE............ 12,000 12,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE 1,150 1,150
MONITORING SYSTEM......................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 6,450 6,450
RESEARCH [DOER]........................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT 2,820 2,820
PROGRAM [DOTS].........................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM.... 270 270
FACILITY PROTECTION [CISP].............. 5,500 5,500
FERC HYDROPOWER COORDINATION............ 3,000 3,000
FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY 4,700 4,700
REIMBURSEMENT..........................
GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL............. 600 600
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS....... 3,000 3,000
INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK 8,125 8,125
FORCE/HURRICANE........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD 30,000 30,000
CONTROL PROJECTS.......................
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION 6,920 6,920
PROJECTS...............................
NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY........ 10,000 10,000
NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL 8,673 8,673
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT...................
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM........ 6,300 8,300
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO 10,000 10,000
RISK ASSESSMENT).......................
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM 6,750 6,750
[NEPP].................................
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR 571 571
REALLOCATIONS..........................
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT... 300 300
PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS.. 50 50
REDUCING CIVIL WORKS VULNERABILITY...... 1,000 ..............
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS............... 500 500
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.......... 4,771 4,771
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION.. 825 825
RECREATIONONESTOP [R1S] NATIONAL 215 215
RECREATION RESERVATION.................
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.... 1,800 4,000
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR 300 300
REHAB..................................
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT 500 500
[WOTS].................................
-------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS......... 176,612 344,812

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE...... .............. -56,200
-------------------------------
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.. 2,588,000 2,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perdido Pass, Alabama.--The Committee encourages the Corps
to conduct an updated survey of the need for maintenance
dredging of Perdido Pass.
Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--The Calcasieu Ship
Channel connects the city of Lake Charles, Louisiana, with the
Gulf of Mexico. The Port of Lake Charles is the 11th largest
seaport in the United States due to the tonnage handled for
various industries via the Channel. The channel is highly
important to the U.S. and local economy and is often busy with
a variety of industrial and recreational traffic. The Committee
recognizes that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has done a
significant amount of work to dredge the channel, but more work
still needs to be done to increase the width of the waterway to
accommodate the size and number of vessels the channel can
handle. The Committee urges the Corps to make dredging of the
Calcasieu Ship Channel a priority in order to maintain its fine
safety record and allow the importation/exportation of
materials so valuable to the local and global economy.
Beneficial Use of Dredge Material.--The Secretary is urged
to conduct a pilot disposal and sediment project to determine
the cost-effectiveness of pump-out disposal operations for
hopper dredges involving the transportation of material to
established disposal sites. A non-Federal sponsor must fund the
additional cost in excess of the least cost method of dredge
material disposal. No more than 1 year after the date of the
selection of this pilot project, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report that provides a comparison of the cost
effectiveness of operations described above compared to the
least cost disposal method generally used when and where the
pilot project is selected. The report must describe the
resultant environmental benefits of the operations, including
ecosystem enhancement, wave attenuation, sediment retention,
and storm surge reduction. The report must also provide a
comparison of operations described above and district-wide
operation and maintenance dredging activities, including an
analysis of means, methods, quantities, and costs both
cumulatively and for beneficial use.
Zebra and Quagga Mussels.--The Committee understands the
challenges posed by the invasion of quagga and zebra mussels in
various places across the country, and that invasion has not
yet occurred in the Pacific Northwest and Lake Tahoe. Given the
significant Federal assets in the region, it would seem prudent
to determine the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure. The
Committee recognizes the work that is underway, but believes
more can and should be done to prevent invasion. Portions of
the country are already dealing with these invasive species and
the lessons learned should be applied to developing a strategy
of minimizing the impacts to vulnerable infrastructure in this
region. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers in
partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, to
continue its efforts to develop invasive mussel vulnerability
assessments for federally owned hydropower projects, in the
Pacific Northwest, including an estimate of the annual cost of
protection and maintenance of this infrastructure, if
applicable. Further, the Committee urges the Corps, where
appropriate, to assist the States in their efforts to prevent
the spread of invasive mussels to Federal projects in the
region.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The fiscal year 2014
budget request does not fund operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of our Nation's aging infrastructure
sufficiently to ensure continued competitiveness in a global
marketplace. Federal navigation channels maintained at only a
fraction of authorized dimensions, and navigation locks and
hydropower facilities well beyond their design life result in
economic inefficiencies and risks infrastructure failure, which
cause substantial economic losses. The Committee believes that
investing in operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
infrastructure today will save taxpayers money in the future.
The Committee recommendation includes additional funds to
continue ongoing projects and activities including periodic
dredging of ports and harbors. None of these funds may be used
for any item where funding was specifically denied. The intent
of these funds is for ongoing work that either was not included
in the administration's request or was inadequately budgeted.
The Committee directs that priority in allocating these funds
be given to completing ongoing work maintaining authorized
depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels, including
where contaminated sediments are present, and for addressing
critical maintenance backlog. Particular emphasis should be
placed on projects where there is a U.S. Coast Guard or other
water safety/police force presence; that will enhance national,
regional, or local economic development; or that will promote
job growth or international competitiveness.
The Committee is concerned that the administration's
criteria for navigation maintenance does not allow small,
remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways to properly
compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee
urges the Corps to revise the criteria used for determining
which navigation maintenance projects are funded in order to
develop a reasonable and equitable allocation under this
account. The criteria should include the economic impact that
these projects provide to local and regional economies, in
particular, those with national defense or public health and
safety importance.
Funding associated with each category may be allocated to
any eligible project within that category; funding associated
with each subcategory may be allocated only to eligible
projects within that subcategory. The list of subcategories is
not meant to be exhaustive. Priority in allocating these funds
should consider the following: number of jobs created directly
by the funded activity; benefits to the local, regional, or
national economy; ability to obligate the funds allocated
within the fiscal year; ability to complete the project,
separable element, or project phase within the funds allocated;
and risk of imminent failure or closure of the facility.
Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
work plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed.
The plan should include: (1) the ratings system developed and
used to evaluate projects; (2) a summary of the work to be
accomplished with each allocation; and (3) a list and
description of each discrepancy between the results of the
project evaluations and the allocations made. No funds shall be
obligated for any project in the work plan which has not been
justified in such a report. The Committee directs that a
listing should accompany the work plan showing all the ongoing
projects that were considered eligible and could have used
funding for fiscal year 2013 and the reasons why these items
were considered as being less competitive for inclusion in the
work plan.
Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability.--No funding is included
for this new item. However, the Committee has combined the
intent of this study within the Water Resources Priority Study
funded in the General Investigations account and changed the
name to the National Flood Risk Assessment Study.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $192,614,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 200,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

An appropriation of $200,000,000 is recommended for the
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters,
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977
Public Law 95-217, and the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Public Law 92-532.
The appropriation helps maintain program performance,
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships
with States and local communities through watershed planning
efforts.
The Committee believes compensatory mitigation is
appropriate for a permitted activity when that activity damages
or destroys the value of wetlands. However, the Committee is
concerned about the rigid application of the Modified
Charleston Method [MCM] in the Lower Mississippi River Valley
and the associated adverse impacts it is having on essential
public works projects along existing and established flood
protection alignments. It is the Committee's belief that the
six factor categories which determine compensatory mitigation
requirements under MCM provide the requisite flexibility to
reduce mitigation requirements for vital levee and related
flood control projects. However, the significant increase in
mitigation costs resulting from MCM have dramatically and
negatively affected property values and economic development
initiatives in the Lower Mississippi River Valley. The Corps is
directed to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this act the ways
in which compensatory mitigation is calculated for critical
infrastructure projects that have sought to avoid and minimize
all impacts to adjacent wetlands. This report should also
include proposals for alternative mitigation strategies and
recommendations for increasing supply-side mitigation
opportunities that would make compensatory mitigation
activities more cost competitive.

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $108,782,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 104,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 195,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $195,000,000
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2014.
The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was
transferred from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps of
Engineers in the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-62.
FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts.
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies.
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program.
The Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing
completion. 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

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $1,034,996,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 28,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes emergency funding of $1,008,000,000 in the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-2).

The Committee has recommended $28,000,000 for the Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies account. This account provides
funds for preparedness activities for natural and other
disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting and rescue
operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore protection
work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean water
where the source has been contaminated or where adequate
supplies of water are needed for consumption.

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $194,630,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 182,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 182,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
\2\Includes emergency funding of $10,000,000 in the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113-2).

This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office,
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The
Committee recommendation is $182,000,000.
Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the
Chief of Engineers and 8 division offices supervise work in 38
district offices.
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support
center provides administrative services (such as personnel,
logistics, information management, and finance and accounting)
for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate
field operating activities.
Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs
studies and analyses, and develops planning techniques for the
management and development of the Nation's water resources.
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This
center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and
accounting.
Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee believes
that an Office of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works
Program would hamper the efficient and effective coordination
of issues with the Committee staff and Members of Congress. The
Committee believes that the technical knowledge and managerial
expertise needed for the Corps headquarters to effectively
address Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and
headquarters policy matters resides in the Civil Works
organization. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that
the Office of Congressional Affairs not be a part of the
process by which information on Civil Works projects, programs,
and activities is provided to Congress.
The Corps is reminded that General Expense funds are
appropriated solely for the executive management and oversight
of the Civil Works Program under the direction of the Director
of Civil Works.

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

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $4,992,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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

GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

Section 101. The bill includes language concerning
reprogramming guidelines.
Section 102. The bill includes language concerning
continuing contracts and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Section 103. The bill includes a provision requested by the
administration providing the Corps of Engineers authorization
for emergency measures to exclude Asian Carp from the Great
Lakes. It should be noted that when considering this language
for inclusion in this bill that the Committee did not consider
hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes Basin from the
Mississippi River Basin to be an emergency measure. The
Committee believes that the issue of hydrologic separation
should be fully studied by the Corps of Engineers and vetted by
the appropriate congressional authorizing committees and
specifically enacted into law rather than have implementation
be attempted through this limited provision.
Section 104. The bill includes language concerning funding
transfers requested by the administration related to fish
hatcheries.
Section 105. The bill includes language concerning a
project cost increase requested by the administration for the
Olmsted Lock and Dam Project.
Section 106. The bill includes language concerning a
project deauthorization in Massachusetts.
Section 107. The bill includes language concerning a
project deauthorization in Illinois.
Section 108. The bill includes language concerning the
deauthorization of a portion of a project in Rhode Island.
Section 109. The bill contains language concerning a
project cost increase requested by the administration for the
Little Calumet, Indiana, project.
Section 110. The bill contains language concerning the
combining of two projects and the sharing of credits between
two projects in Florida.
Section 111. The bill contains language concerning a
technical fix for a project in Florida requested by the
administration.
Section 112. The bill contains language concerning the Cape
Arundel disposal site in Maine.
Section 113. The bill contains language concerning the
Little Rock district of the Corps of Engineers.
Section 114. The bill contains language concerning the
Chicago District of the Corps of Engineers. The Committee is
concerned by recent proposals by the Corps of Engineers to
relocate and consolidate administrative staff from the Chicago
District of the Corps of Engineers to other Districts in the
Great Lakes region. The Committee directs the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to submit to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report detailing any
proposals to relocate and consolidate administrative staff
among Corps Districts, including plans impacting the Chicago
District. This report should be submitted prior to relocating
or consolidating administrative staff and include estimated
cost savings derived from proposed relocations, consolidations,
and transfers of functions, timelines for accomplishing
proposals, impact on jobs in each affected city and plans to
ensure that critical functions are not diminished by
implementation of such proposals.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

INTRODUCTION

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

OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation is composed of $1,049,584,000 in new budget
authority. The budget request is $3,881,000 more than the
fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before sequester. Accounting
for the Central Utah Project, the Department of the Interior's
request for this bill is $17,077,000 less than the fiscal year
2013 enacted amount before sequester.
The budget request for Reclamation includes $3,500,000 for
the Central Utah Project that the administration has proposed
to integrate under Reclamation's jurisdiction as a separate
account. The Committee has accepted this proposal. The
administration's request for Indian water rights settlements
($78,661,000) and the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund
($26,000,000) are requested as separate accounts.
The Committee believes that the budget request,
particularly for the Water and Related Resources account, is
inadequate to fund the water and power needs in the West. Aging
infrastructure continues to be a major concern as to whether
projects will continue to provide the benefits to the economy
for which they were constructed. New stresses on water supplies
from population growth to drought require innovative ways to
wring every bit of efficiency that is possible out of the
existing infrastructure. While rural water funding is increased
over last year's request, it is still inadequate to allow any
of these projects to make substantial progress towards
completion.
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund is proposed at
$53,288,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is an increase of
$247,000 from the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before
sequester. This account is primarily funded from revenues
collected from water and power customers. Levels of funding in
this account are based on a 3-year rolling average of revenues
collected.
The California Bay-Delta Restoration account is proposed at
$37,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is down $2,572,000 from
the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before sequester.
The Policy and Administration account is requested at
$60,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is an increase of
$120,000 from the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before
sequester.

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $893,210,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 791,135,000
Committee recommendation................................ 945,796,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

An appropriation of $945,796,000 is recommended by the
Committee for the Bureau of Reclamation. This includes the
budget request for Water and Related Resources. Also included
within this amount are the proposed funding levels for Indian
Water Rights Settlements and the San Joaquin River Restoration
under this account.
The Water and Related Resources account supports the
development, management, and restoration of water and related
natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account
includes funds for operating and maintaining existing
facilities to obtain the greatest overall level of benefits, to
protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to
improve the use of water and related natural resources. Work
will be done in partnership and cooperation with non-Federal
entities and other Federal agencies.
The Committee has divided underfinancing between the
Resources Management subaccount and the Facilities Operation
and Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the
underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied
uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon
applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming
procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule
slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen conditions.

FEDERAL PREFERENCE POWER FOR RECLAMATION PROJECTS

The Committee recognizes that in some areas, power prices
have increased significantly, increasing costs to Reclamation
projects that lack power supplies. The Committee directs the
Bureau of Reclamation to work with the Federal power marketing
administrations, state utility regulators, and private
utilities to find ways to supply Federal preference power for
pumping project water at authorized Reclamation irrigation
projects that lack power supplies, and the Committee requests
that the Bureau report to the Committee on the progress of such
efforts within 180 days.

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The budget for the Bureau of Reclamation consists of
individual line-items of projects. As presented by the
President, the budget contains 195 specific line-item requests
for directed spending by the administration. An additional 46
line-item requests for funding by the administration are for
nationwide line-items. All of these line-items were specific
requests by the administration to be funded in fiscal year
2014. The administration did not request these funds
programmatically, but rather requested them for a specific
project in a specific location for a specific purpose.
Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous
with earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the
Bureau of Reclamation where the majority of the budget request
is based on individual line-item studies and projects. Due to
this ongoing debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all
congressionally directed spending requests for fiscal year
2014. Accordingly, the administration has total discretion as
to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be
spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The
Committee has retained the traditional table for the Water and
Related Resources account delineating the line-items requested
by the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in
the administration's budget request, the Committee has also
inserted some additional line-item funding under the Regional
Programs heading for specific categories of studies or projects
that the Committee feels are underrepresented in the
administration's budget request. Reclamation has discretion
within the guidelines provided as to which line-items this
additional funding will be applied to. The Committee has not
included any congressionally directed spending as defined in
section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the standing rules of the Senate.

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

ARIZONA

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT.............. .......... 12,375 .......... 12,375
COLORADO RIVER BASIN--CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT................... 8,602 436 8,602 436
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM...................... 2,990 .......... 2,990 ..........
SALT RIVER PROJECT.............................................. 704 230 704 230
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT............ 52 .......... 52 ..........
SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY..................... 10 .......... 10 ..........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS.............................................. 1,412 22,430 1,412 22,430

CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT................................................. 672 674 672 674

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/MORMON ISLAND (SOD) 1,789 9,169 1,789 9,169
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT.................................... 35 2,285 35 2,285
DELTA DIVISION.............................................. 6,468 5,511 6,468 5,511
EAST SIDE DIVISION.......................................... 1,332 2,730 1,332 2,730
FRIANT DIVISION............................................. 2,292 3,426 2,292 3,426
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT................ .......... .......... 26,000 ..........
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS.............................. 9,246 454 9,246 454
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE .......... 17,351 .......... 17,351
PROGRAM....................................................
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION................................... 3,246 1,026 3,246 1,026
SAN FELIPE DIVISION......................................... 397 75 397 75
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION........................................ 52 .......... 52 ..........
SHASTA DIVISION............................................. 430 8,195 430 8,195
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION...................................... 14,353 4,233 14,353 4,233
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.................................. 4,359 7,423 4,359 7,423
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT.................... 40,150 6,518 40,150 6,518
ORLAND PROJECT.................................................. .......... 910 .......... 910
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT..................................... 300 .......... 300 ..........
SOLANO PROJECT.................................................. 1,407 2,367 1,407 2,367
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT........................................... 338 33 338 33

COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT......................................... 891 1,313 891 1,313
COLLBRAN PROJECT................................................ 262 1,691 262 1,691
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT................................... 251 12,883 251 12,883
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT........................................ 122 117 122 117
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT...................................... 349 8,526 349 8,526
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT--ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT............. 1,000 .......... 1,000 ..........
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II............................. 638 1,362 638 1,362
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT....................... .......... 2,254 .......... 2,254
MANCOS PROJECT.................................................. 110 124 110 124
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II........................... 106 2,574 106 2,574
PINE RIVER PROJECT.............................................. 204 288 204 288
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT......................................... 294 3,608 294 3,608
CONEJOS, CO................................................. 26 33 26 33
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT............................................. 770 185 770 185
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM......................... 270 .......... 270 ..........

IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS............................................. 3,019 3,269 3,019 3,269
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT................ 18,000 .......... 18,000 ..........
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS...................................... 664 30 664 30
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.......................................... 2,283 6,783 2,283 6,783
PRESTON BENCH PROJECT........................................... 4 8 4 8

KANSAS

WICHITA PROJECT--CHENEY DIVISION................................ 79 472 79 472
WICHITA PROJECT--EQUUS BEDS DIVISION............................ 50 .......... 50 ..........

MONTANA

FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM............ 4,300 .......... 4,300 ..........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT............................................ .......... 795 .......... 795
HUNTLEY PROJECT................................................. 32 64 32 64
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT....................................... 364 22 364 22
MILK RIVER PROJECT.............................................. 548 1,358 548 1,358
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYSTEM.................. 5,400 .......... 5,400 ..........
SUN RIVER PROJECT............................................... 53 263 53 263

NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT............................................ 15 132 15 132

NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY...................................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT.......................................... 5,759 4,042 5,759 4,042
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM......................... 115 .......... 115 ..........
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM................................ 775 .......... 775 ..........

NEW MEXICO

CARLSBAD PROJECT................................................ 2,556 1,017 2,556 1,017
EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY........................... 649 .......... 649 ..........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT....................................... 13,252 12,682 13,252 12,682
RIO GRANDE PROJECT.............................................. 885 3,871 885 3,871
RIO GRANDE PEUBLOS PROJECT...................................... 250 .......... 250 ..........
TUCUMCARI PROJECT............................................... 14 20 14 20

NORTH DAKOTA

PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT.............. 17,698 6,417 17,698 6,417

OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT................................................ 67 186 67 186
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT............................................. 89 788 89 788
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT........................................... 25 576 25 576
NORMAN PROJECT.................................................. 48 410 48 410
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT........................................... 129 1,300 129 1,300
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT............................................. 58 614 58 614

OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT........................................... 253 514 253 514
DESCHUTES PROJECT............................................... 301 190 301 190
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS......................................... 639 232 639 232
KLAMATH PROJECT................................................. 15,975 2,025 15,975 2,025
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION...................... 1,704 436 1,704 436
TUALATIN PROJECT................................................ 94 209 94 209
UMATILLA PROJECT................................................ 574 2,814 574 2,814

SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM.............................. 3,200 .......... 3,200 ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.................................. .......... 15 .......... 15
MNI WICONI PROJECT.............................................. .......... 12,000 .......... 12,000
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT............................................ .......... 92 .......... 92

TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT............................................... 25 15 25 15
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.......................................... 82 86 82 86
LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PRO- GRAM........ 50 .......... 50 ..........
NUECES RIVER PROJECT............................................ 74 649 74 649
SAN ANGELO PROJECT.............................................. 56 529 56 529

UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT................................................... 289 160 289 160
MOON LAKE PROJECT............................................... 102 79 102 79
NEWTON PROJECT.................................................. 32 89 32 89
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT............................................. 232 252 232 252
PROVO RIVER PROJECT............................................. 1,243 438 1,243 438
SANPETE PROJECT................................................. 60 11 60 11
SCOFIELD PROJECT................................................ 372 77 372 77
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT....................................... 708 83 708 83
WEBER BASIN PROJECT............................................. 1,130 1,075 1,130 1,075
WEBER RIVER PROJECT............................................. 79 79 79 79

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.......................................... 3,761 5,755 3,761 5,755
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS........................................ 436 70 436 70
YAKIMA PROJECT.................................................. 804 6,616 804 6,616
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.................... 8,016 .......... 8,016 ..........

WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT................................................ 108 7,293 108 7,293
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT............................................ 209 1,298 209 1,298
SHOSHONE PROJECT................................................ 76 776 76 776
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES.............................. 223,793 231,885 249,793 231,885

REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
RURAL WATER................................................. .......... .......... 25,000 ..........
FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS............................... .......... .......... 5,000 ..........
WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY............................. .......... .......... 10,000 ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE.................... .......... .......... 5,000 ..........
FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILITATION....... .......... .......... .......... 9,000
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I.......... .......... 12,158 .......... 12,158
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I.......... 6,100 .......... 6,100 ..........
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 5................ 3,360 5,283 3,360 5,283
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 8................ 3,923 .......... 3,923 ..........
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT................ 537 .......... 537 ..........

DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY PROGRAM............... .......... 1,300 .......... 1,300
INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION................... .......... 66,500 .......... 66,500
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS.......................... .......... 20,284 .......... 20,284
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM............................ .......... .......... 500 ..........
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM................ .......... 1,400 .......... 1,400
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM.............. 21,207 .......... 21,207 ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION............................ 1,717 .......... 1,717 ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.............................. .......... 9,491 .......... 9,491
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM......................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES..................................... 2,000 .......... 2,000 ..........

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS:
AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT............................ .......... .......... 4,664 ..........
CROW TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2010.............. .......... .......... 7,500 ..........
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT.......................... .......... .......... 60,497 ..........
TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT.............. .......... .......... 4,000 ..........
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION ACT .......... .......... 2,000 ..........
OF 2010....................................................
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................... 10,684 .......... 10,684 ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM......................... 27,839 .......... 27,839 ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.......................... .......... 848 .......... 848
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM................................. 7,412 .......... 7,412 ..........
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING............... 2,376 .......... 2,376 ..........
OPERATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT................................ 768 1,446 768 1,446
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM--OTHER PICK SLOAN............. 3,320 37,647 3,320 37,647
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.......................................... 2,083 307 2,083 307
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM................................ 662 206 662 206
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.................................. 2,331 .......... 2,331 ..........
RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION......... 2,391 .......... 2,391 ..........

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM................. 2,016 1,285 2,016 1,285
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.............................. 13,265 .......... 13,265 ..........
SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES.................................... .......... 27,800 .......... 27,800
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL SUPPORT........... 90 .......... 90 ..........

WATERSMART PROGRAM:
WATERSMART GRANTS........................................... 12,000 .......... 20,000 ..........
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM................... 3,437 .......... 3,437 ..........
COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT............................ 250 .......... 250 ..........
SHARED INVESTMENT WATER INNOVATION PROGRAM.................. 1,000 .......... 1,000 ..........
BASIN STUDIES............................................... 4,734 .......... 4,734 ..........
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM COMMISSONER'S 14,000 .......... 22,000 ..........
OFFICE TITLE XVI...........................................
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS............................... 149,502 185,955 289,663 194,955

UNDERFINANCING.................................................. .......... .......... -11,759 -8,741
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 373,295 417,840 527,697 418,099
-----------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES.................. .......... 791,135 .......... 945,796
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Central Valley Project, Friant Division, San Joaquin
Restoration.--The Committee has chosen not to include a
separate account for this item. Rather it is being funded as a
sub-element under the Friant Division of the Central Valley
Project. The Committee believes that this is prudent to keep
these funds within the Water and Related Resources account
maximizing the flexibility of the funding.
Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico, Water Acquisition Program.--
The Committee recognizes that the Middle Rio Grande basin is
fully appropriated and that any change in use of native water--
to benefit the Rio Grande, Bosque habitat and species protected
under the Endangered Species Act--must come from some current
existing use. To date, the needs of the Middle Rio Grande
Endangered Species Collaborative Program [Program] have been
met through the short-term acquisition of water, primarily from
leasing San Juan-Chama water from willing lessors. Due to the
increased demand on San Juan-Chama water, the development of an
additional long-term water supply of native Rio Grande water is
necessary to meet the needs and goals of the Program. The
Committee urges the Program to--(a) update existing studies or
complete additional studies regarding the feasibility of an
agricultural water leasing program in the middle Rio Grande;
(b) work cooperatively with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District [District] to implement metering and the annual
allocation of water to facilitate a water leasing program
within the District; (c) create a geospatial database of pre-
1907 water right owners within the District along with a map of
the location in relationship to the water conveyance system of
the District; (d) increase outreach to irrigators in the
District to identify willing lessors or sellers; and (e)
determine the fair market value of leasehold and fee simple
interests in native Rio Grande water rights. The Committee
encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to develop and implement a
long-term pilot water acquisition program by lease, purchase,
dry-year optioning, rotational fallowing, or dedication of
water or water rights within the Rio Grande Basin in New
Mexico, including water and water rights native Rio Grande and
from the San Juan-Chama Project under its current Middle Rio
Grande Supplemental Water Acquisition Program. Water and/or
water rights acquired through the Middle Rio Grande
Supplemental Water Acquisition Program will be acquired only
from willing lessors or sellers and designed to benefit the Rio
Grande, Bosque habitat and species protected under the
Endangered Species Act.
Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico, San Acacia Reach--Physical
Habitat Restoration and Management.--The Committee is aware of
the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative
Program's [Program] existing habitat restoration and
improvement activities in the Albuquerque and Isleta reaches of
the Middle Rio Grande including physical manipulations of the
Rio Grande channel (riverine restoration) and adjacent bosque
(riparian restoration). The Committee recognizes that the
Program has completed habitat restoration projects with a focus
on the aforementioned reaches to date, however, further
recognizes that the improvement in the San Acacia reach of the
Middle Rio Grande from San Acacia Dam to the delta of Elephant
Butte Reservoir is a critical component for the recovery of the
species. Because of the ecological importance of the San Acacia
reach and likelihood of increased water shortfalls, the
Committee urges the Program to conduct a comprehensive study of
the infrastructure of the San Acacia reach including but not
limited to the alternate configurations and/or altered
management scenarios of the Low Flow Conveyance Channel, and
conduct a feasibility analysis of a one-channel river system.
Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.--Within the funds
provided for the operation and maintenance of the project,
Reclamation may use the funds for upgrading existing community
water systems that have always been intended as part of the
project.
Indian Water Rights Settlements Account.--The Committee has
chosen not to include a separate account for this work. The
Committee recognizes that these are legal settlements with the
affected tribes, however, believe it is prudent to keep these
items within the Water and Related Resources account. Beyond
the actual water rights settlement funding, many of these
settlements included construction components very similar to
rural water projects funded elsewhere in this account. The
Committee understands that, due to the way the settlements were
structured, some of the discretionary funding may not be
obligated in fiscal year 2014 and will be carried over into
later years. The Committee urges Reclamation to minimize this
practice to the extent practicable and within the confines of
these settlements. To maintain the visibility of these
projects, the Committee has included the five projects under
the Regional Programs heading with a subheading called Indian
Water Rights Settlements.
Buried Metallic Water Pipe.--Reclamation is again reminded
that the fiscal year 2012 conference report was very specific
that Reclamation should not use Technical Memorandum 8140-CC-
2004-1 (``Corrosion Considerations for Buried Metallic Water
Pipe'') as the sole basis to deny funding or approval of a
project or to disqualify any material from use in highly
corrosive soils. The Committee continues to be concerned about
how Reclamation is following the guidance from the fiscal year
2012 Energy and Water Conference Report, title II of division B
of House Report 112-331. The concern stems from the Committee
direction that Reclamation assemble data on pipeline
reliability for all types of pipe specified in table 2 of
Technical Memorandum 8140-CC-2004-1 along with the specified
corrosion protection applied in the various soil types and to
conduct an analysis of the performance of these types of pipe
installed in the same or similar conditions. It has come to the
Committee's attention that Reclamation may be requiring
different reliability standards for different pipe materials.
The Committee directs Reclamation to report to the Committee
within 30 days of enactment of this Act as to the reliability
standards that are being utilized for the analysis required in
the fiscal year 2012 conference report. Reclamation should
understand that the Committee intends for Reclamation to
analyze the reliability standards in as near as possible to the
exact same conditions so that there is no bias towards any
particular pipe material. Before finalizing the analysis,
Reclamation shall contract with the National Academies to
review the draft analysis to ensure that the uniform
reliability standard, in addition to the analysis of economics,
cost-effectiveness, and life-cycle costs, is accurate and
consistent across all referenced materials.
Rural Water.--The Committee understands that Reclamation is
using the amount of non-Federal funds provided by a sponsor in
excess of the authorized non-Federal cost share as a criteria
to determine how a project will be budgeted. The Committee
views this as improper pressuring of local sponsors in an
attempt to get them to contribute more than the authorized cost
share for a project. If a sponsor is willing to provide excess
funds, Reclamation should obviously accept those excess funds,
but they should not try to compel excess non-Federal funds as a
means of prioritizing a sponsor's project for Federal funds.
Therefore, the Committee directs that Reclamation should not
use the level of excess non-Federal funding as a criteria for
budgeting rural water projects.
Zebra and Quagga Mussels.--The Committee understands the
challenges posed by the invasion of quagga and zebra mussels in
various places across the country, and that invasion has not
yet occurred in the Pacific Northwest and Lake Tahoe. Given the
significant Federal assets in the region, it is prudent to
determine the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure. The
Committee recognizes the work that is underway, but believes
more can and should be done to prevent invasion. Portions of
the country are already dealing with these invasive species and
the lessons learned should be applied to develop a strategy of
minimizing the impacts to vulnerable infrastructure in this
region. The Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation, in
partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, to
continue its efforts to develop invasive mussel vulnerability
assessments for federally owned hydropower projects, in the
Pacific Northwest, including an estimate of the annual cost of
protection and maintenance of this infrastructure, if
applicable. Further, the Committee urges Reclamation to assist
the States, where appropriate, in their efforts to prevent the
spread of invasive mussels to Federal projects in the region.
Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.--
The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above
the budget request for Water and Related Resources studies,
projects, and activities. The Committee recommends that
priority in allocating these funds should be given to complete
ongoing work, improve water supply reliability, improve water
deliveries, tribal and nontribal water settlement studies and
activities, ecosystem restoration, enhance national, regional,
or local economic development, promote job growth and for
critical backlog maintenance activities, and activities related
to projects that need to reduce water demand as a part of a
comprehensive program for environmental restoration and
settlement of water rights claims.
For rural water projects, Reclamation shall not use the
ability of a non-Federal sponsor to contribute funds in excess
of the authorized non-Federal cost share as a criteria for
prioritizing these funds.
The intent of these funds is for work that either were
omitted from the budget request or were inadequately budgeted.
Within 30 days of enactment, Reclamation shall provide the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees a work plan
delineating how these funds are to be distributed and in which
phase the work is being accomplished.
WaterSmart Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse
Projects.--The Committee believes there is an opportunity to
enhance the program's effectiveness through the advancement of
regional-scale projects that include multiple jurisdictions and
generate environmental as well as water supply benefits to be
competitive. These regional projects can require longer
planning and construction timeframes than other more narrowly
focused projects. Accordingly, the Committee believes that the
Bureau of Reclamation should consider allocating a portion of
the funds within the overall title XVI program in future budget
requests for advancing regional-scale water reclamation and
reuse projects by providing planning and construction
assistance grants that can each be used over longer periods of
time.
Additionally, the Committee is concerned that constrained
budgets impact the research and development initiatives vital
to improvements in water recycling and desalination
technologies development and applications. The Committee
believes that only through enhanced Federal and non-Federal
research partnerships can research and development vital to
much needed improvements in water recycling and desalination
technologies development and applications be accomplished.
Within the amounts appropriated, the Committee has included the
requested $1,000,000 in funds for the Bureau of Reclamation's
WaterSMART program to fund the Shared Investment Water
Innovation Program to provide for extramural cost-shared
research grants to fund high-priority research and development
initiatives by non-governmental organizations, including not-
for-profit organizations who often partner with the Bureau of
Reclamation, to advance next-generation water management
technologies, including water reuse, recycling, and
desalination.

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $53,041,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 53,288,000
Committee recommendation................................ 53,288,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $53,288,000
for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of
Public Law 102-575. This fund uses revenues from payments by
project beneficiaries and donations for habitat restoration,
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of
California. Payments from project beneficiaries include several
required by the act (Friant Division surcharges, higher charges
on water transferred to non-CVP users, and tiered water prices)
and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional
annual mitigation and restoration payments.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act, enacted into
law in October 1992, established 34 activities to restore and
enhance fish and wildlife habitats in California's Central
Valley and Trinity Basins. The act established a Restoration
Fund for the deposit of contributions from CVP water and power
users to pay for those activities, along with contributions
from the State of California, Federal appropriations, and other
contributors. Unfortunately, a number of sources envisioned to
contribute to this fund never materialized or funding is no
longer available from those sources.
Power users, in particular, are paying a much greater share
than anyone anticipated. This has resulted in high CVP power
costs, and unpredictable fee assessments on power agencies. The
fees imposed on power users are unpredictable, since in low
water years the water users pay very little and the power users
make up the difference.
Since the fund was established in 1992 more than
$1,400,000,000 has been spent for restoration activities, but
there has been little accountability on how effectively it has
been used. There is very little assurance that the goals of the
Restoration Fund will be met in the near future, such that the
fees could be reduced under the statute. Therefore, the
Committee urges the Commissioner to continue to work with power
users to determine a more predictable payment stream for power
users and to develop measures to provide more accountability
and transparency to the restoration process. Further, a report
covering the previous fiscal year activities should be
submitted by March 1, 2014, and every year thereafter.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $39,572,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 37,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 37,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of
$37,000,000 for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
This account funds activities that are consistent with the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18
State and Federal agencies and representatives of California's
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals
of the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water
supply reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-
San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California's
water distribution system.

Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $20,958,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 3,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,500,000

\1\The fiscal year 2013 funds were provided as a separate account under
the Department of the Interior.

The fiscal year 2014 budget request recommended funding for
the Central Utah Project Completion Act as a separate account
under the Bureau of Reclamation so that the priority of the
Central Utah Project can be evaluated in the context of other
water programs. The Committee recommendation provides the
budget request level of funding as a separate account with the
same funding control points as when it was carried as a
separate account under the Department of Interior.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2014 to carry
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
totals $3,500,000. An appropriation of $1,200,000 has been
provided for Central Utah project construction; $1,000,000 for
deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
account for fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and
conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,300,000
for program administration and oversight.
Legislative language is included which allows up to
$1,500,000 of the funds provided to be used for administrative
costs.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account.
The act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the
act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $59,880,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

Appropriations, 2013....................................................
Budget estimate, 2014................................... $78,661,000
Committee recommendation................................................

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the Indian
Water Rights Settlements Account.
This account was proposed as a part of the administration
request to cover expenses associated with four Indian water
rights settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-291), title X of the Omnibus Public Lands
Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11), and the White
Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act
(Public Law 110-390). Rather than create a new account as
proposed, the Committee has provided this funding request under
the Regional Programs section of the Water and Related
Resources account as similar work and funding has been
previously provided in that account.

SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2013....................................................
Budget estimate, 2014................................... $26,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the San
Joaquin Restoration Fund account.
This account was proposed to implement the provisions
described in the Stipulation of Settlement for the National
Resources Defense Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit. Rather
than provide discretionary funding in this account as proposed,
the Committee has provided this funding request under the
Central Valley Project, Friant Division of the Water and
Related Resources account as similar work and funding has been
previously provided in that account.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Section 201. The bill includes language regarding Bureau of
Reclamation Reprogramming.
Section 202. The bill includes language regarding the San
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
Section 203. The bill includes language concerning
groundwater banking requested by the administration.
Section 204. The bill includes language concerning water
transfers requested by the administration.
Section 205. The bill includes language extending the
Drought Act requested by the administration and raising the
appropriation ceiling.
Section 206. The bill includes language extending the
CALFED Bay-Delta authorization requested by the administration.
Section 207. The bill includes language increasing the cost
ceiling of the Secure Water Act requested by the
administration.
Section 208. The bill includes language extending the Water
Desalination Act requested by the administration.
Section 209. The bill includes language that allows Joint
Powers Authorities to participate in water storage studies. The
Secretary of the Interior shall complete and issue the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS] and draft feasibility
study associated with any storage project authorized under
Public Law 108-361, no later than July 15, 2014 and ensure the
completion and issuance of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement [FEIS] and final feasibility study associated with
any such water storage project no later than September 30,
2015. Within 60 days of enactment of this act, the Secretary
shall report to the Committee whether the Bureau of Reclamation
will meet the DEIS, FEIS and feasibility deadlines
independently or through cooperative agreements with local
partners to ensure their completion.
Section 210. This provision concerns the Friant prepayment
for the San Joaquin River Settlement currently authorized for
disbursement starting in 2019. The provision advances
disbursement of these prepaid funds to 2014 and limits
expenditure of these authorized mandatory funds to $40,000 per
year. The section changes no other provisions of the San
Joaquin River Settlement.
Section 211. The bill includes language concerning the
Central Utah Project requested by the administration.
Section 212. The bill includes language concerning the Fort
Peck/Dry Prairie, Montana project.

TITLE III

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Exascale Initiative

The Committee recommends $150,000,000, which includes
$81,000,000 for the Office of Science and $69,000,000 for the
NNSA, to support the Department's initiative to deploy the
first exascale system by 2022. The Committee continues to
support this research, development, and engineering effort to
develop a new generation of high performance computers that can
accelerative scientific discoveries, improve U.S. economic
competitiveness, and maintain confidence in the safety,
security, and reliability of the country's nuclear weapons
deterrent.
The Committee believes the United States must remain the
world leader in high performance computing. To achieve this
ambitious goal of deploying a computing system 1,000 times
faster than today's supercomputers requires a coordinated
effort between the Office of Science and NNSA. The Committee
supports the shared responsibilities laid out in a Memorandum
of Understanding between NNSA and the Office of Science which
assigns primary responsibility for systems engineering to NNSA
and long-lead research and development in advanced
architectures and system software to the Office of Science.
The Committee recommends that the Secretary assign an
advisor on exascale computing to coordinate efforts across the
Department and would report directly to the Secretary on the
status of efforts to implement the exascale strategic plan.

Small Business Contracting

The Committee is concerned about the Department's plans to
change the way it manages small business contracts to achieve
the agency's small business prime contracting goal. The
Department's plans would increase costs to the Federal
Government without helping small businesses. For example,
converting Management and Operating subcontracts to Department
prime contracts would increase the Department's administrative
costs by up to $50,000,000 to hire 260 additional FTEs with
contracting expertise. The Department's plans may also
adversely disrupt existing subcontracts with small businesses
and prevent the integration of critical safety and security
functions at its sites and facilities. The Committee bill
allows the Department to count subcontracts awarded by its
Management and Operating contractors toward the agency and
government-wide goals for procurement contracts awarded to
small businesses.

Reprogramming Guidelines

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

ENERGY PROGRAMS

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $1,810,463,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 2,775,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,280,985,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommendation is $2,280,985,000 for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Quadrennial Technology Review.--Based on the results of the
Department's Quadrennial Technology Review, and the Nation's
many urgent energy challenges, the Committee recommends that
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy consider
applying more funding toward near-term commercialization
efforts in partnership with the private sector.
Hydrogen Technology.--The Committee continues to support
fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle,
motive and portable power applications. The Committee
recommends $100,000,000 for the Fuel Cell Technologies program.
Within this total funding, $10,000,000 is for Technology
Validation focused on passenger vehicle and hydrogen
infrastructure applications where vehicles will be deployed,
$42,000,000 is for hydrogen fuels R&D, and $10,000,000 is for
Market Transformation for cost-shared advanced demonstration
and deployment of early market stationary power and motive
applications including material handling equipment, ground
support equipment, refrigerated trucks, auxiliary power units
and the associated hydrogen infrastructure.
The Committee is encouraged by the collaborative approach
reflected in the H2USA Letter of Agreement and sees it as an
important step toward commercialization of fuel cell vehicles
and the supply chain. With regard to infrastructure, DOE should
analyze, research and make suitable investments in order to
transform the size, cost, scalability, and interoperability of
new stations, including modular stations, in order to meet the
needs of the initial, commercial market beginning in 2015,
while having the ability to increase the station capacity as
commercialization develops. Additionally, DOE should continue
to support efforts to finalize codes and standards to promote
fuel cell and infrastructure commercialization, to establish a
national template for emergency responder training programs,
and to ensure metering and quality standards that can be met
and verified by State and local measurement standards agencies.
Bioenergy Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$245,000,000 for biomass and biorefinery systems R&D. Within
the available funds, the Department is encouraged to direct a
total of $30,000,000 for algae biofuels. The Committee is
concerned the Department is interpreting biomass too narrowly
and failing to consider promising noncellulosic forms of
biomass energy technology projects. For purposes of allocating
resources, the Department is directed to include biosolids
derived from the municipal wastewater treatment process and
other similar renewables within the definition of
noncellulosic. In funding biomass and biofuels refinery
systems, the Department is encouraged to provide funding to
projects that utilize regionally available and appropriate wood
and agricultural biomass feedstock for thermal heating
applications. The Committee recognizes that quality and
reliability of supplies will be key in acceptance of advanced
drop-in biofuels into the supply chain once they are
demonstrated at a convincing scale. To that end, the Committee
is supportive of the collaboration between the Navy, Department
of Agriculture and DOE to develop innovative technologies for
jet and diesel fuels for military uses. With the Department of
Defense as an early adopter of these alternative fuels, the
wider marketplace will be more likely to follow. The Committee
has provided the requested $45,000,000 to support this effort.
The Committee urges the Department to provide funds to projects
that utilize regionally available and appropriate wood and
agricultural biomass feedstock for thermal heating
applications.
Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $310,000,000 for
solar energy. The Committee supports the increase to
$61,081,000 for solar balance of system soft cost reduction and
directs the Department to engage with State and local
governments to reduce costs and timelines associated with
permitting, interconnection, and inspection; to create
technical and professional standards for solar installers to
eliminate overlapping inspections; and to encourage innovative
business models that reduce soft costs to consumers. Further,
the Committee supports the grid integration activities proposed
in the budget request.
Wind Energy.--The recommendation is $110,000,000 for wind
energy. The Committee directs use of offshore wind technologies
funding to include freshwater, deepwater, shallow water, and
transitional depth installations. The Committee understands
that the Department is making resources available on a
competitive basis for offshore wind advanced technology
demonstration projects and expects that such funds continue to
be awarded for new and innovative technologies.
Geothermal Technology.--The recommendation for geothermal
technology is $60,000,000. The funds made available by this
section shall be disbursed to the full spectrum of geothermal
technologies as authorized by the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) and the Department of
Energy shall continue its support of comprehensive programs
that support academic and professional development initiatives.
The Committee continues to have concerns about the level of
funding devoted to low-temperature geothermal research and
development and directs the Department to provide funding to
this geothermal area of research and development. The U.S.
Geological Survey has identified more than 120,000 MW of
untapped potential at these temperatures.
Water Power Energy R&D.--The Committee recommends
$59,000,000 for water power, including $43,500,000 for marine
and hydrokinetic technology research, development and
deployment, and $15,500,000 for conventional hydropower. The
Committee directs the Department to provide not less than
$20,000,000 for competitive demonstrations of marine and
hydrokinetic technologies. The Committee recommends the
Department review its university-based National Marine
Renewable Energy Centers and determine if these activities
should be consolidated into one existing Center. The Committee
is concerned with the Department's proposal to construct a new
deep-water wave tank testing facility in fiscal year 2014 and
then to immediately turn to constructing an off-shore testing
facility in fiscal year 2015. The Committee directs the
Department to consult with industry to determine if the deep-
wave tank testing facility is a priority for industry. The
Department is directed to share the out-come of the industry
consultation with Congress before taking any action. None of
the funding may be used for the proposed advanced manufacturing
initiative for MHK devices. The Committee recommends that the
Department coordinate with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other relevant agencies
and industry to reduce the amount of time to permit MHK test
and demonstration projects. The Committee also recommends that
the Water Power Program, in coordination with the Fossil Energy
Program, demonstrate the ability of marine and hydrokinetic
technologies to reduce emissions and improve energy
efficiencies related to offshore oil and gas production.
Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$415,000,000 for vehicle technologies. The Committee
acknowledges the progress toward the Super Truck program's
goals, anticipates continued progress in fiscal year 2014 with
the $10,100,000 requested in the budget, and supports continued
fulfillment of existing contracts to support commercialization
of truck technologies demonstrated by industry partners. The
Committee further encourages the Department to identify
additional measures to leverage the success of the current
program toward additional fuel economy gains to incorporate
alternatives to petroleum fuels in commercial vehicles. The
Committee notes that class 8 heavy-duty trucks account for 25
percent of commercial trucks, yet consume 75 percent of the
total amount of petroleum used for all commercial trucks. The
Committee recommends that a portion of the funds appropriated
to the Vehicle Technology Program be used to research, develop,
and demonstrate the most promising class 8 heavy-duty long-haul
truck technologies (such as alternative fuel or dual fuel
technologies), capable of significantly reducing air pollution
emissions and petroleum consumption in a cost effective manner.
The Committee believes that such work will leverage existing
Federal investments and help put our heavy-duty truck fleet on
the path to reduced petroleum usage. The Committee supports the
grid integration activities proposed in the budget request.
Further, within available funds, $10,000,000 is provided to
continue funding of section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence
and Security Act. Lastly, $10,000,000 is provided for
competitive demonstrations of electric vehicle deployment
programs. Grants made available with this funding should focus
on a limited number of awards in order to maximize large-scale
deployment.
Building Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$224,000,000 for building technologies. The Committee supports
the grid integration activities proposed in the budget request.
These activities hold particular promise for the Building
Technologies Program, where new control paradigms at the
building/grid interface promise near-term efficiency gains, as
well as additional operational flexibility and resilience for
electric distribution systems. The Committee notes that
television set-top boxes cost consumers $3,000,000,000 in
electricity charges in 2011, with $2,000,000,000 wasted when
televisions are not in use. The Committee commends industry for
its commitments to utilize more efficient equipment. The
Committee encourages the Department of Energy to work with
industry and stakeholders to develop and deploy widely
equipment that meets Energy Star 4 specifications and powers
down or off when not in use as soon as feasible. Further, the
Committee urges the Department to consider establishing a
Geothermal Heat Pump Technology Office within the Buildings
Technology Program to promote developing innovative geothermal
heat pump technologies and enhancing their use in both
residential and commercial buildings. The Department is to
report back within 6 months of enactment of this act on the
progress for the Geothermal Heat Pump Technology Office.
The Committee recommends no funding for the Energy
Efficient Buildings Hub, and directs the Department to
terminate the Hub. The Department may use the remainder of
prior year balances provided to the Hub for research and
development activities within the program. After $80,000,000 in
appropriations and spending $55,000,000 over the last 4 years,
the Committee has seen no measurable benefit from this
investment. The purpose of the Hubs is to accelerate the
discovery of transformational energy technologies within 5
years that are likely to be commercialized by the private
sector. Unlike the other Hubs, which have clear goals and
timeframes, the Energy Efficient Buildings Hub never
established key deliverables within the 5 year award period.
The Hub was more focused on the economic development of the
Philadelphia area rather than developing a national program to
improve the energy efficiency of commercial and residential
buildings across the United States. In addition, most of the
activities described in the Hub's program plan are already
being addressed by core programs in the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Last year, an independent
review team found that this Hub was poorly managed and lacked
measurable goals. Despite efforts by the Department to help
improve management of the Hub and establish key deliverables
within the 5 year award period, the Committee has seen no
improvement. The Committee is frustrated that the Department
did not exercise sufficient oversight of the Hub at its
inception to avoid these mistakes and expects the Department to
take faster action when programs are not meeting management or
scientific goals. It appears that part of the Department's
problem in exercising control of the Hub stems from the Hub's
organizational structure, which involves several Federal
agencies and other non-Federal partners which have changed
since the Hub was created. In proposing future Hubs, the
Department should incorporate the lessons learned from this Hub
to provide the greatest opportunity for success. If the
Department again seeks to propose a Hub jointly with any other
Federal agency it will have to detail how the Department is
going to exercise oversight and control in such a structure.
The Department should work to minimize duplication and overlap
between any Hub and the Department's program offices.
Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recognizes the
importance of the manufacturing sector to the U.S. economy,
directly generating 12 percent of U.S. GDP and employing nearly
12 million people. The Committee recommends $215,985,000 for
advanced manufacturing. Within this total funding, $5,000,000
is for the joint additive manufacturing pilot institute with
the Department of Defense, $10,000,000 is for development of
additive manufacturing processes, low cost carbon fiber, and
other manufacturing technologies at the existing Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility, $25,000,000 is for the Critical
Materials Hub aimed at improving critical material supply
chains that are prone to disruption, $56,000,000 is for the
wide bandgap semiconductor institute. The Committee supports
the President's vision to strengthen domestic manufacturing and
improve U.S. competitiveness through a National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation, however, the Committee would like to
see analysis to identify and prioritize investments in clean
energy manufacturing. The Committee encourages the Department
to conduct this analysis to justify requests for more
substantial increases for institutes in clean energy
manufacturing.
Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee
recommends $30,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management
Program.
Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$46,000,000 for facilities and infrastructure.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $185,000,000
for program direction.
Strategic Programs.--The Committee recommends $28,000,000
for strategic programs.
Weatherization Assistance Program.--The Committee provides
$190,000,000. The Committee notes that the Inspector General
has found instances where weatherized homes have failed state
inspections or fell short of minimum efficiency standards. The
committee encourages the Weatherization Program to raise
standards by (1) requiring crew laborers, crew leaders,
contractors, energy auditors and QC inspectors to meet minimum
training requirements and to meet or exceed current industry
standards for home performance accreditation programs as
determined by the Secretary; (2) ensuring that each retrofit
for which weatherization assistance is provided meets or
exceeds the standards in applicable building energy codes and
quality of work standards after the work is completed; and (3)
increasing third party inspection to ensure compliance with
building energy codes and quality of work standards. The
Committee notes, however, the important role that
weatherization plays in permanently reducing energy costs for
low-income families, lessening our dependence on foreign oil,
and training a skilled workforce.
Intergovernmental Activities.--The Committee provides
$53,000,000 for State Energy Programs and $10,000,000 for
Tribal Energy Activities.

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $139,219,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 169,015,000
Committee recommendation................................ 149,015,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $149,015,000 for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability. The Department should support
or implement accelerated deployment of new renewable
electricity generation by developing best practices and
providing the necessary funds for States seeking to form
interstate compacts for integrating large-scale renewable
energy into their transmission system.
The Committee supports the Department's proposed research
on advanced modeling capabilities to improve electric planning
and operations. Advances in big data analytic capabilities and
modeling and visualization technologies offer potential for
improving efficient operations of the electric grid
particularly when incorporating power from variable renewable
energy sources such as wind and solar energy. Within funds
provided for the Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability
Program, the Committee urges the department to consider
applications beyond response to energy supply disruption, and
to include university/industry teams. The Committee directs the
Department to report on the need for workforce education as a
necessary element for the successful and rapid transition of
advanced modeling and simulation solutions developed under this
program.
Because of recent natural disasters and other interruptions
to power and energy sources, the Committee generally supports
the Department's desire to create new capabilities for
emergency response and monitoring. The Committee, however, also
has the responsibility to ensure that the limited taxpayer
dollars that are available to the Department are allocated in
the most cost-efficient manner possible. The Committee has
evaluated the Department's restructuring proposal and is
concerned that instead of replacing lower priority activities
with new, higher priority activities, the Department is simply
adding work scope and not achieving the types of efficiencies
that are expected in these tight budgets. The Committee is
concerned that the Department would create significant out-year
mortgages and an unsustainable new number of Federal jobs. The
Committee understands, for example, that as part of the
proposed Operational Energy and Resilience program, the
Department is seeking to create 17 new Federal FTES, and will,
in future budget years, propose a total of 70 permanent FTEs to
operate this program at its peak. This more than doubles the
current number of FTEs currently in this office, and will have
a significant effect on future funding decisions. The
Department is directed, within 90 days after the enactment of
this Act, to provide the Committee a report on the proposed
Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration program,
including funding requirements for future years, proposed staff
levels, a detailed justification of the duties and
responsibilities of Federal staff proposed to be located in
each State, and any other detail that is relevant to the
Committee's consideration in evaluating the program.
The Committee does not include funding for the proposed
Electricity Systems Hub. In proposing new hubs, the Department
should model its approach after the successful hubs, each of
which addresses a well-defined grand energy challenge and has a
focused mission. An energy innovation hub should not be
proposed for work that could otherwise be conducted within an
office's research and development programs if sufficient
resources could be freed through prioritization. In this case,
the Department has not made a strong argument that the proposed
work warrants establishing a new hub.

Nuclear Energy

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $757,482,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 735,460,000
Committee recommendation................................ 735,460,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $735,460,000 for Nuclear Energy,
including $94,000,000 for safeguards and security at Idaho
National Laboratory. In addition, the Committee recommends use
of prior year balances in the amount of $5,000,000.

Nuclear Energy Research and Development

Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support.--The
Committee recommends $70,000,000 for Small Modular Reactor
Licensing Technical Support. The Committee understands that due
to the issuance of a second funding opportunity announcement
for more innovative designs, the program has been extended from
five to six years but will remain subject to the original
$452,000,000 cap. Prior to making any additional awards, the
Department should conduct an economic assessment to determine
whether favorable market and other economic considerations
justify supporting additional reactor designs. The Committee
directs any new awardees to be selected only after a full
competitive process.
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and
Demonstration.--The Committee recommends $62,500,000 for
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
Committee directs the Nuclear Energy Program to focus funding
for Reactor Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration,
which includes funding for Advanced SMRs and Advanced Reactor
Concepts, on technologies that show clear potential to be
safer, less waste producing, more cost competitive, and more
proliferation-resistant than existing nuclear power
technologies.
The Committee supports the termination of the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant demonstration project, and accordingly
recommends no funds for this activity. Although high
temperature gas reactors may present significant potential
benefits in the future, there is little to no likelihood of
such reactors being built in the United States in the mid-term.
The low price of natural gas will continue to undermine the
economic case for using nuclear reactors for process heat.
The Committee recommends $21,000,000 for Advanced Reactor
Concepts. The Committee is encouraged by the Department's
efforts to develop enhanced accident tolerant fuels which will
significantly improve the ability of nuclear reactors to cope
with beyond-design-basis accidents. The Committee supports a
continued and strengthened program leveraging its significant
applied materials science resources embodied in the national
laboratory complex with the domestic commercial nuclear sector.
The Committee supports focused development on concepts that
target reduced heat and hydrogen production from reactions
under loss of coolant conditions, and which provide additional
barriers to fission product release, thus limiting the
possibility of offsite contamination in the event of
catastrophic accidents. Specific encouraging examples include
accelerated development of advanced self-protecting steel
cladding and the ceramic-based microencapsulated fuel. The
Committee also directs the Department to engage in a rigorous
analysis utilizing its recently integrated high-speed computing
and modeling activities to underpin the benefit of these new
enhanced accident tolerant fuels.
The Committee notes that significant developments in the
nuclear energy field have occurred since the Department issued
its Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap [Roadmap]
in 2010. These new developments, such as, lessons learned from
Fukushima, advances in small modular reactor technologies, and
DOE path forward on the BRC recommendations, should inform the
Department's research and development priorities in the future.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to update the
Roadmap to ensure that its research and development priorities
reflect the most current and emerging needs of the nuclear
energy field to allow the United States to maintain a strong
world leadership role in nuclear technologies. Further, the
Committee directs the Department to identify how it will
integrate the missions and expertise of our unique national
laboratories to help meet these long-term goals. The Department
is directed to submit the updated Roadmap to Congress no later
than 180 days after the enactment of this act.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee
recommends $175,100,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and
Development. The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for used
nuclear fuel disposition, consistent with the budget request.
The Committee notes that nearly 18 months have passed since
the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future
submitted its final recommendations to the Secretary of Energy.
The Committee continues to strongly support these
recommendations, and again provides funding for research and
development activities which support efforts to move forward on
a new nuclear waste management program, regardless of the
location of storage or disposal facilities. The Committee again
includes a general provision in section 309 of this bill which
allows the Department of Energy to develop a pilot program for
a consolidated storage facility, pending enactment of more
comprehensive legislation.
The Committee recommends $57,100,000 for the Advanced Fuels
program. The Committee directs the Department to continue
implementation of the accident tolerant fuels development
program, the goal of which is development of meltdown-resistant
nuclear fuels leading to in-reactor testing and utilization in
10 years. The Committee is concerned that the proposed
reduction for the Advanced Fuels program does not support
continued engagement of private industry and universities as
the process of evaluating and selecting promising technologies
for accident tolerant fuel for further development in the
United States moves into reactor testing and fuel licensing
work. In addition to continuation of the industry and
university cost shared program initiated in fiscal year 2012,
$3,000,000 is recommended to advance promising and innovative
research, including ceramic cladding and other technologies,
emanating from qualified and competitively selected small
business research task awards that complement the three major
industry and university projects and are focused on the
development and testing of accident tolerant fuels. Further,
the Committee is concerned that the Department has not yet
provided to the Committee the plan for development of meltdown-
resistant fuels leading to in-reactor testing and utilization
by 2020 as required in the Fiscal Year 2012 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (Report 112-75). The Committee directs the
Department to provide this report to the Committee no later
than 30 days after enactment of this act.
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $62,300,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling
Technologies. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$12,563,000 for the National Scientific User Facility.
The Committee recommends $24,300,000 for the Energy
Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation, which represents
the fifth fiscal year of funding for this Hub. The Committee
recognizes the accomplishments of this Hub, whose centerpiece
is a virtual model of an operating pressurized water reactor.
Research and data from this Hub has, and will continue, to
provide a basis for improving the safety and economic cases for
approximately two-thirds of the Nation's operating commercial
reactors. Allowing researchers and engineers to examine real-
time operations in this virtual reactor provides opportunities
to address issues in nuclear reactors that have not been
possible until now. The Department is encouraged to apply
lessons learned from this Hub to any new Hubs it proposes in
the future.
Radiological Facilities Management.--The Committee provides
$20,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management. Within this
funding, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for hot cells at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The Committee recommends
$5,000,000 for Research Reactor Infrastructure.
Idaho Facilities Management.--The Committee recommends
$166,560,000 for Idaho Facilities Management.
International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.--The Committee
provides $2,500,000 for International Nuclear Energy
Cooperation, the same as the request.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $87,500,000
for Program Direction to be available until September 30, 2015.

Fossil Energy Research and Development

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $532,932,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 420,575,000
Committee recommendation................................ 420,575,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $420,575,000 for Fossil Energy
Research and Development.
CCS and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends
$268,631,000 for CCS and Power Systems. Within the available
funding, Advanced Energy Systems is funded at $40,000,000.
Within Gasification Systems, a subprogram of Advanced Energy
Systems, the recommendation includes $8,000,000 to continue
activities improving advanced air separation technologies.
Funds recommended for Carbon Capture and Storage, and Power
Systems shall be available to continue to advance the full
scope of technologies for the reduction of carbon emissions
conducted at the Department of Energy's National Carbon Capture
Center, including direct carbon capture and technologies or
methods to reduce the cost of or advance the efficiency or
reliability of post-combustion capture technologies, pre-
combustion capture technologies, and oxy-combustion systems.
The United States is experiencing a significant increase in
natural gas production and use in the United States. The
Committee is aware that some of the research and development
work being conducted within the CCS and Power Systems programs
for coal are also potentially applicable to natural gas. The
Department is directed to use funds from this program for both
coal and natural gas research and development as it determines
to be merited.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $115,753,000
for program direction.
Other Programs.--The Committee recommends $13,294,000 for
Plant and Capital Equipment; $5,897,000 for Fossil Energy
Environmental Restoration; and $700,000 for Special Recruitment
Programs. Within available funds, the Committee directs the
Department to continue the Risk Based Data Management System.
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for natural gas
technologies. Of this amount, $12,000,000 is for interagency
research and development initiatives and $8,000,000 is for
ongoing methane hydrates research and development.

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $14,879,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for Naval Petroleum
and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $192,319,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 189,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 189,400,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $189,400,000 for the operation of
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The Committee notes that the Department has continued to
ignore the statutory directive in Public Law 111-8 to submit a
report to Congress regarding the effects of expanding the
Reserve on the domestic petroleum market by April 27, 2009. The
Department has not yet submitted the report, and continues to
fail to meet other congressionally mandated deadlines without
explanation or cause. Although now nearly 4\1/2\ years delayed,
the information requested in the report continues to be
pertinent to policy decisions, and the Secretary is directed to
submit the report as expeditiously as possible to the
Committee. The Committee is concerned with the Department's
seeming unwillingness or inability to implement a law enacted
in 2009.

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $4,099,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve as requested.

Energy Information Administration

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $104,790,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 117,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 117,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $117,000,000 for the Energy
Information Administration.

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $235,250,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 212,956,000
Committee recommendation................................ 232,956,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee's recommendation for Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup is $232,956,000.
Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2014, the
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between
operating expense funded projects within the controls listed
below using guidance contained in the Department's budget
execution manual (DOE M 135.1-1A, chapter IV). All capital
construction line item projects remain separate controls from
the operating projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the
House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all
reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the
Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of
congressional response. The Committee recommends the following
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2013:
--Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and
Decommissioning;
--Gaseous Diffusion Plants;
--Small Sites; and
--West Valley Demonstration Project.
Internal Reprogramming Authority.--Headquarters
Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one
time, between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety
risks, gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a
program or project is not increased or decreased by more than
$2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year.
The reprogramming authority--either formal or internal--may
not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding
levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased
by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within
30 days after the use of the internal reprogramming authority.
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and
Decommissioning.--The Committee recommends $2,545,000.
Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--The Committee recommends
$96,222,000.
Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $70,189,000. In
response to a lack of progress on addressing existing
contamination and seismic deficiencies within buildings that
are located in heavily used areas at some Department national
laboratories, the Department is directed to use additional
funding to improve health and safety by cleaning up existing
contamination and improving seismic standards of buildings
within Department laboratory grounds.
The Committee also encourages the Department to explore
remediation efforts at small sites which can demonstrate new
models for cleanup performed by private sector and third party
organizations, such as laboratories and universities, which
could save substantial resources compared to the traditional
agency-led cleanup model and result in faster cleanup without
compromising public safety. The Committee urges the Department
to budget for such cleanup models.
West Valley Demonstration Project.--The Committee
recommends $64,000,000.

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $471,984,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 554,823,000
Committee recommendation................................ 554,823,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $554,823,000 for Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning activities, the
same as the budget request.

Science

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $4,866,248,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 5,152,752,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,152,752,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $5,152,752,000 as requested for
the Office of Science. The Committee continues to support the
three highest priorities for the Office of Science: (1) the
discovery and design of new materials for the generation,
storage, and use of energy, (2) better understanding of
microorganisms and plants for improved biofuels production, and
(3) the development and deployment of more powerful computing
capabilities to take advantage of modeling and simulation to
advance energy technologies and maintain U.S. economic
competitiveness.

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $1,805,162,000, a decrease of
$57,249,000 below the request, for Basic Energy Sciences. Of
these funds, the Committee recommends up to $100,000,000 for
Energy Frontier Research Centers and $24,237,000 each for the
Fuels from Sunlight and Batteries and Energy Storage Hubs.
Within these funds, the Committee also recommends
$20,000,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research [EPSCoR] program, which was created by
Congress over concerns about the uneven distribution of Federal
research and development grants. The Committee encourages the
Department to continue funding to support research and
development needs of graduate and post-graduate science
programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $625,347,000 as requested for
Biological and Environmental Research. Within these funds, the
Committee recommends $321,066,000 for biological systems
science and $304,281,000 for climate and environmental
sciences.
Within the funds for biological systems science, the
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for nuclear medicine research
for human application. Within the funds provided for climate
and environmental sciences, the Committee recommends
$46,700,000 as requested for the operation of the Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory. The Committee also recommends $74,000,000 for
climate and Earth systems modeling of which $500,000 is to be
used to engage universities more directly in climate analysis.
The Committee is aware that the program is engaged in a
collaborative process focused on adaptation to climate change.
Specifically, the program has engaged other Federal agencies,
climate modelers, and end users in an evaluation of how best to
advance model development in service of adaptation given a
rapidly evolving climate. The Committee encourages a
continuation of this effort and would urge that it focus on
recommendations to ``downscale'' global models to a level of
resolution which facilitates informed decisionmaking at the
local, state and regional level. Given the significant
computing power needs and massive volumes of statistical data
associated with this effort the Committee would note the
critical role that the national laboratories can play through
their science expertise and computing resources. The Committee
would urge further involvement by the national laboratories in
development of climate models which can facilitate development
of high resolution, regionally focused climate projections.

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $493,773,000, an increase of
$28,180,000 above the request, for Advanced Scientific
Computing Research. The Committee believes its recommendation
would allow the Department to develop and maintain world-class
computing and network facilities for science and deliver the
necessary research in applied mathematics, computer science,
and advanced networking to support the Department's missions.
Within these funds, the Committee recommends $81,000,000,
an increase of $12,500,000 above the request, for the exascale
initiative to spur U.S. innovation and increase the country's
ability to address critical national challenges. The Committee
supports the Department's plan to deploy the first exascale
system by 2022 that is energy efficient with a peak power not
to exceed 20 megawatts based on marketable technology and have
real-world, mission-critical applications ready to use on
exascale platforms with computationally efficient and reliable
system software.
Since few companies have the resources or expertise to
develop and maintain their own modeling, simulation, and
analytics software, the Committee is concerned that it is
becoming increasingly difficult for small, medium, and even
large businesses to take advantage of powerful, new computing
capabilities. The Committee directs the Office of Science to
submit a plan to this Committee by May 1, 2014 that would (1)
simplify access to computing resources at the labs, especially
for small- and medium-sized businesses, (2) establish a few
primary points-of-contact to help industry learn about advanced
computing capabilities and resources available within the
Department and national laboratories, and (3) engage relevant
and qualified independent software vendors to partner with the
laboratories to help bridge the gap between the research
capabilities at the labs and the commercial needs of companies
by adapting and customizing lab-developed software for use by
industry.
The Committee also recommends $93,000,000 for the Oak Ridge
Leadership Computing Facility, $67,000,000 for the Argonne
Leadership Computing Facility, and $65,605,000 for the National
Energy Research Scientific Computing Center facility at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Computational
Science Graduate Fellowship program to maintain a healthy
pipeline of computational scientists equipped and trained to
address the Department's mission needs, including advances in
exascale computing.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $806,590,000, an increase of
$30,069,000 above the request, for High Energy Physics. Within
these funds, the Committee recommends $35,000,000 as requested
for construction of the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment.
The Committee also recommends $30,000,000 for the Long Baseline
Neutrino Experiment, which includes $10,000,000 for research
and development and $20,000,000 for project engineering and
design. Research in neutrinos represents the next frontier of
particle physics and this experiment remains a top priority for
the U.S. and international physics communities. The Committee
restores funding for this project to mature the design, develop
better cost estimates, and encourage international
collaborators to make financial contributions. Within the funds
for High Energy Physics, the Committee recommends $15,000,000
to support minimal, sustaining operations at the Homestake Mine
in South Dakota.
Within the funds for High Energy Physics, the Committee
also recommends $20,000,000 for Accelerator Stewardship. The
Committee recognizes the critical role accelerator technology
can play in addressing many of the economic and societal issues
confronting the country. The Committee supports the Office of
Science's efforts to make unique test facilities available to
U.S. industry to accelerate applications of accelerator
technology. Testing accelerator technology, such as at beam
facilities, is the only, unambiguous way to demonstrate the
operational efficacy of a new technology and represents the
final step in validating a design concept.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $569,938,000 as requested for
Nuclear Physics. Within these funds, the Committee recommends
$25,500,000 in construction funds for the upgrade to the
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, which the
Nuclear Science Advisory Committee reaffirmed was the highest
priority for the nations' nuclear physics program. The
Committee also recommends $55,000,000 for the Facility for Rare
Isotope Beams, $17,255,000 for operations of the Argonne Tandem
Linac Accelerator System, and $165,200,000 for the Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider for 22 weeks of operations.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $458,324,000 as requested for
Fusion Energy Sciences. Within these funds, the Committee
recommends no less than $75,000,000 for the Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory to maintain core expertise in plasma theory
and simulation, general plasma science, and tokamak research.
The Committee also recommends no less than $77,000,000 for the
DIII-D fusion reactor, which includes $10,264,000 for upgrades
to the reactor, $16,000,000 to support critical scientific
staff, and $904,000 to support university students and post-
docs. The Committee provides no funding for the Alcator C-Mod
fusion reactor at MIT. The Committee commends the Office of
Science for making a difficult choice to shut down the facility
to fund higher priority activities within the fusion energy
sciences program.
The Committee also recommends $14,773,000 for High Energy
Density Laboratory Plasmas, which includes $6,575,000 as
requested for experiments on the Matter in Extreme Conditions
instrument at the Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC and
$8,198,000 for academic grants to study the behavior of matter
and radiation at extreme temperatures and pressures to match
funding available at NNSA for this joint program. The Committee
also recommends $2,500,000 for heavy ion fusion science
research at the Neutralized Drift Compression Experiment-II at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to take advantage of an
$11,000,000 Recovery Act upgrade to the facility.
The Committee also recommends $12,000,000 for the Fusion
Simulation program to provide experimentally validated
predictive simulation capabilities that are critical for ITER
and other current and planned toroidal fusion devices. The
Committee is concerned that the fusion energy program is not
taking full advantage of high performance computing to address
scientific and technical challenges on the path to fusion
energy. Given current and future budget constraints, the
Committee views this initiative as critical to maintain U.S.
world leadership in fusion energy sciences in a cost-effective
manner. The Committee directs the Office of Science to develop
a plan on the use of these simulation capabilities based on the
results of a 2-year planning effort recently funded by the
Department.
The Committee is concerned by the lack of a strategic
vision, which includes research and future facility needs, to
advance the domestic fusion energy sciences program. The
Committee directs the Secretary to submit a 10-year plan, not
later than 12 months after enactment of this act, on the
Department's proposed research and development activities in
magnetic fusion. The report shall (1) identify specific areas
of fusion energy research and enabling technology development
in which the United States can and should establish or solidify
a lead in the global fusion energy development effort and (2)
identify priorities for facility construction and facility
decommissioning.
The Committee recommends $183,502,000 for the U.S.
contribution to ITER. No funding shall be made available for
the U.S. contribution until the Secretary submits to this
Committee a baseline cost, schedule, and scope estimate
consistent with project management principles in DOE Order
413.3B of the U.S. contribution needed for completing all
construction activities.
The Committee is concerned by the rising costs of the ITER
project and the impact to the domestic program. The cost range
for the U.S. contribution for construction activities was
between $1,450,000,000 and $2,200,000,000. The most recent
estimate is $2,400,000,000 and this estimate only fulfills U.S.
obligations for first plasma, rather than all construction
activities. The Committee is further concerned that the latest
cost estimate does not properly account for the technical risk
of building the most complicated engineering facility in the
world. The most recent cost range was developed when the design
for ITER was less than 40 percent complete.
The Committee also directs the Office of Science to include
a project data sheet with details of all project costs until
the completion of the project for ITER in the fiscal year 2015
budget submission. The Committee understands that the
Department provides funding for ITER as a Major Item of
Equipment rather than a line item construction project, which
would be consistent with DOE Order 413.3B. However, the
Committee feels that a multi-billion dollar project, especially
of this scale and complexity, should be treated as a
construction project and follow DOE Order 413.3B guidance.

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $16,500,000 as requested. The
Committee directs the Office of Science to provide this
Committee with a cost assessment and evaluation of the impact
to existing workforce development activities of establishing
the Distinguished Scientist program authorized in the America
COMPETES bill. The Committee believes this program has merit
and should be priority for workforce development.

Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $264,470,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 379,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 379,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $379,000,000 as requested for the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy [ARPA-E]. The
Committee supports ARPA-E's efforts to advance energy
technologies in transportation and stationary power systems,
including advanced vehicle designs and materials and stationary
energy storage systems. The Committee is encouraged by ARPA-E's
early indicators of success. For example, 17 projects, which
received $70,000,000 in ARPA-E funding, have now secured more
than $450,000,000 in outside private capital investment to
further develop these technologies. In addition, 12 new
companies have been formed to bring new technologies to market.
With dozens of projects nearing the end of their 3-year
grants, the Committee directs ARPA-E to submit a report to this
Committee by March 1, 2014, that evaluates the success of the
first set of projects. The report should include whether the
projects achieved their technical milestones, how many projects
received follow on funding from the private sector or other
government agencies, how many new companies have been formed,
and whether any technologies have been deployed in the
marketplace.

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 48,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. -$38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... -22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -22,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\..............................................
Budget estimate, 2014................................... $26,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $42,000,000 in funding for the
Loan Guarantee Program. This funding is offset by $22,000,000
in receipts from loan guarantee applicants. The Committee does
not recommend any additional loan authority in fiscal year
2014.

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $5,988,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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

Departmental Administration

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $237,370,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 226,580,000
Committee recommendation................................ 234,637,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. -$111,623,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... -108,188,000
Committee recommendation................................ -108,188,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $125,747,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 118,392,000
Committee recommendation................................ 126,449,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $126,449,000 for Department
Administration. The Committee notes that the Department has not
yet satisfied its outstanding obligation under the Final Elk
Hills Agreement, and urges the Secretary to act as soon as
practicable to comply with the terms of this agreement. The
Committee notes that the Secretary may reduce or eliminate the
research and development match requirement established in
section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, where necessary
and appropriate. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
consider the use of this discretion if the research goals of
the Department of Energy would be advanced by reducing or
eliminating the match requirement for nonprofit organizations
and institutions.
Energy Policy and Systems Analysis.--The Committee supports
the consolidation of the Department's energy policy analysis
functions. Consistent with direction in the Energy and Water
Development fiscal year 2010 conference report, consolidation
will reduce redundancy across the Department and enable
enterprise-wide orchestration of analytical capabilities across
all areas relevant to the Nation's energy sector. As part of
this effort, the Committee shifts funding for policy functions
from elsewhere in the Department into the Energy Policy and
Systems Analysis office within Departmental Administration.
This accounts for the $5,852,000 increase in Department
Administration funding.
The Office of the Secretary of Energy shall ensure that it
is a full participant in the administration's efforts to
identify the best locations to site interstate transmission
lines to maximize access to the Nation's most significant
renewable energy resources. Additionally, the Department is
directed to collect, compile, and maintain data on the efforts
of the tax code on meeting the Nation's energy challenges, such
as improving energy security, pollution reduction, and
improving energy technology innovation and competitiveness, in
a manner that will be useful during the tax reform debates.
The Committee is concerned that the Department has not made
a concerted effort to reduce contractor international travel
costs. According to a recent DOE Inspector General [IG] audit,
while the Department implemented a mandatory 30 percent
reduction in Federal employee travel, parallel actions have not
been taken to manage or control foreign travel by contractors.
According to the IG, a 30 percent reduction to international
travel costs incurred by its 100,000 contractor workforce could
save millions of dollars each year. Based on the IG's findings,
this Committee estimates, at minimum, $7,000,000 in savings in
fiscal year 2014 to offset the costs of appropriated non-
security funding for the Department by avoiding unnecessary
contractor travel costs and direct the total amount
appropriated for these activities be reduced by that amount to
address budget shortfalls for critical missions.

Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $41,916,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 42,120,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,120,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $42,120,000 for the Office of the
Inspector General.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $11,758,469,000, an increase of
$106,000,000 above the request, for the National Nuclear
Security Administration. The Committee restores funding to
critical nonproliferation activities that reduce the threat of
nuclear terrorism--one of the Nation's most important national
security priorities. The Committee supports accelerated efforts
to secure and permanently eliminate remaining stockpiles of
nuclear and radiological materials overseas and in the United
States that can be used for nuclear or radiological weapons.
The Committee also continues to support efforts to modernize
the nuclear weapons stockpile to sustain a safe, secure, and
effective nuclear arsenal without testing. However, the
Committee is concerned that NNSA will not be able to execute
multiple, highly complex life extension projects and
construction projects concurrently under ambitious schedules.
NNSA's inability to complete projects on time and on budget
adds significant risk to its modernization plans.
Report on Changes to Cost, Schedule, and Scope of Major
Projects.--The Committee is concerned that NNSA is not
communicating changes in cost, schedule, and scope in a
transparent and timely manner. The Committee directs NNSA to
submit a report every 6 months on December 1 and June 1, with
the first report due on December 1, 2013, on the status of
major projects, such as construction projects and life
extension programs, which are estimated to cost a minimum of
$750,000,000. The report shall include, among other things, the
name of the project, a brief description of the mission need, a
brief summary of project status, the baseline cost or expected
cost range and contingencies, expected completion date, scope
of work, and an explanation of changes, if any, to cost,
schedule, scope, or contingencies.
Improving the NNSA Budget Structure.--NNSA was established
in 2000, less than a decade after the cessation of nuclear
testing. The budget structure that was developed to suit the
mission at the time has mostly remained the same while NNSA's
mission has matured and evolved. The Committee believes the
budget structure should change to improve transparency and
flexibility and reflect NNSA's new programmatic focus on life
extension programs, infrastructure modernization, and a
science, technology, and engineering capability to assess the
stockpile without underground testing. The Committee directs
NNSA to submit recommendations to this Committee for a new
budget structure by March 1, 2014, that improves transparency
and reflects new priorities and mission needs without unduly
limiting the flexibility of the agency. The Committee plans to
work with NNSA to develop a new budget structure for the fiscal
year 2016 budget submission.
Strengthening Assessments of Alternatives.--The Committee
is concerned about NNSA's ability to assess alternatives, which
may significantly reduce cost, at the preliminary planning
stages of a project. Two major projects have recently been
terminated or deferred after NNSA spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on design and engineering work, including a plutonium
facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a plutonium pit
disposition facility at Savannah River National Laboratory.
NNSA has since concluded existing facilities can meet mission
needs. The Committee believes this wasteful spending could have
been avoided had NNSA better assessed alternatives. The
Committee also believes NNSA should more rigorously and
thoroughly assess alternatives to construction projects with an
estimated cost over $100,000,000. The Committee directs NNSA to
submit a plan to this Committee by March 1, 2014, on ways it
will strengthen its ability to assess alternatives, including
potential workforce needs and timescales to implement a more
rigorous alternatives assessment capability.
Academic Programs.--The Committee recognizes that the
foundation of NNSA's ability to successfully execute its unique
mission of ensuring a strong nuclear deterrent and preventing
nuclear proliferation is the highly trained workforce at the
national laboratories and production plants. The Committee
acknowledges that developing the next generation of a
specialized workforce is also NNSA's responsibility. The
Committee encourages NNSA to continue to support investments in
academic programs in fields of research important to its unique
mission, especially in focus areas that receive little funding
from other government agencies or private entities

Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $7,574,916,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 7,868,409,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,868,409,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $7,868,409,000 as requested for
Weapons Activities. The Committee's recommendation represents
an increase of $1,483,978,000, or 23 percent, compared to
fiscal year 2010 to support nuclear modernization activities.
Management Efficiencies and Workforce Restructuring.--The
Committee is concerned by NNSA's decision to make the
successful execution of complex nuclear projects, including
life extension projects for five weapons systems and a multi-
billion dollar construction project, contingent on unidentified
and ambiguous management efficiency and workforce restructuring
savings. In fiscal year 2014, the Weapons Activities budget
assumes savings of $320,000,000, but NNSA has not completed any
assessments to determine the reasonableness, feasibility, or
source of those savings. A failure to achieve those savings may
impact critical programs. The Committee directs NNSA to submit
to the Committee within 30 days of completion its Workforce
Management and Governance Studies that identify the source of
management efficiency and workforce restructuring savings.
Assessment on Insensitive High Explosives.--The Committee
understands that the Nuclear Posture Review promotes exploring
options for enhancing the safety of nuclear warheads. Nuclear
weapon designs include fundamental safety features intended to
prevent accidental weapon detonation or the scatter of
radioactive material. One important safety feature NNSA is
considering is the use of insensitive high explosives for all
future weapons undergoing life extension activities, which
would include repurposing plutonium pits that have
traditionally used conventional high explosives. The Committee
has not received sufficient information from NNSA and the
Department of Defense on the need for insensitive high
explosives in all nuclear weapons given the increased cost and
risk of design changes required to use insensitive high
explosives. NNSA has used conventional high explosives safely
over the last 60 years and the W76 warhead which is currently
being refurbished will use conventional high explosives for
another 30 years. The Committee directs NNSA to submit a report
to this Committee by March 1, 2014 that explains the benefits
of using insensitive high explosives in all systems, the
certification strategy for repurposing pits from conventional
to insensitive high explosive systems, the costs associated
with converting systems to insensitive high explosives, and
changes in safety vulnerability assessments, if any, that would
justify this approach.
Plutonium Capability.--With the deferral of a Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility, the Committee
supports efforts to maintain pit manufacturing capabilities
using existing facilities. NNSA assessments have concluded that
existing infrastructure is sufficient to meet pit requirements
for the stockpile until fiscal year 2030 and the Committee
continues to provide sufficient funding to modify existing
buildings to meet those pit requirements. The Committee
recommends $311,067,000 for plutonium sustainment and
manufacturing capabilities, which includes $143,685,000 for
plutonium sustainment activities at Los Alamos, $11,368,000 to
purchase and install new manufacturing equipment to help
achieve a pit production capacity of 30 pits a year by 2021,
$1,894,000 to begin pit certification testing to certify that
newly manufactured pits can be used in the stockpile,
$30,679,000 to complete Phase 2 safety upgrades to the main
plutonium manufacturing facility, known as PF-4, at Los Alamos,
$10,000,000 for additional seismic upgrades at PF-4,
$26,722,000 to continue construction of the Transuranic Waste
Facility at Los Alamos, $55,719,000 to begin construction of
the Radioactive Liquid Waste Facility at Los Alamos, and
$31,000,000 to continue material stabilization, repackaging,
and de-inventory of the PF-4 vault.
JASON Study on Technical Hedge.--The fiscal year 2014
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan proposes a strategy
to consolidate the number of nuclear weapons variants from 12
to 5 over the next four decades. A stated advantage of the
strategy is to ultimately reduce the size of the stockpile
hedge--the portion of the stockpile that is maintained to
mitigate against possible weapons and delivery platform
reliability issues, transportation and surveillance logistics,
and geopolitical changes. Since hedge weapons must be
maintained in the same state of readiness as non-hedge weapons,
significant costs are incurred to maintain the hedge. The
Committee believes that potential reductions to the hedge made
possible by the proposed strategy must be thoroughly evaluated
up front since these strategies require billions of dollars of
near- and medium-term investments in the name of reduced long-
term costs. The Committee directs the JASON group of scientific
advisers to submit to the Committee by April 1, 2014 an
assessment of the requirement to maintain a significant hedge
to address potential technical surprises and the extent to
which NNSA uses quantifiable metrics associated with margins of
uncertainties to determine the appropriate hedge size. The
assessment should determine whether NNSA's requirements and
methodology are mature enough to definitively inform the size
of the technical hedge and, if not, provide recommendations on
what steps should be taken to appropriately mature them.

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommends $2,258,468,000, a decrease of
$170,048,000 below the request, for Directed Stockpile Work.
Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends
$846,560,000, a decrease of $168,044,000 below the request, for
life extension programs.
W76 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$235,382,000 as requested for the W76 Life Extension Program.
Completing the W76 Life Extension Program, which makes up the
largest share of the country's nuclear weapon deterrent on the
most survivable leg of the Triad, is this Committee's highest
priority for life extension programs.
B61 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$369,000,000, a decrease of $168,044,000 below the request, for
the B61 Life Extension Program. The recommended funding will
allow NNSA to continue design, engineering, and testing of
critical non-nuclear components, such as the radar, neutron
generator, power source, and gas transfer system, that are
reaching the end of their lives and would affect the long-term
reliability of this weapon system.
The Committee is concerned that NNSA's proposed scope of
work for extending the life of the B61 bomb is not the lowest
cost, lowest risk option that meets military requirements and
replaces aging components before they affect weapon
performance. NNSA's cost estimate for the B61 Life Extension
Program has doubled in the past two years as work scope has
increased--from $4,500,000,0000 to $8,168,000,000. An
independent cost review by the Department of Defense's Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation office estimates that the
actual cost will be $10,100,000,000. With a projected scope of
only several hundred bombs, NNSA would be paying tens of
millions of dollars per bomb. In addition to cost increases,
the schedule for manufacturing the first production unit, or
the first refurbished bomb, has already slipped 2 years--from
fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2019. NNSA will face additional
delays as it applies the sequester cuts to its major programs.
The Committee encourages NNSA to reconsider the option it
selected for the B61 life extension program and develop a scope
of work that can be successfully executed within known budget
constraints and replaces critical non-nuclear components as
soon as possible to address end-of-life issues. The Committee
also directs NNSA to submit to the Committee within 30 days of
enactment of this Act its analysis of reduced life cycle costs
for the proposed Option 3b for the B61 life extension program,
including cost savings from consolidating the different B61
variants.
W78/W88-1 Life Extension Study.--The Committee recommends
$72,691,000 as requested to continue the W78 life extension
study. The Committee is concerned about projected costs for an
integrated warhead that would provide the same nuclear warhead
for both the Minuteman III and Trident II delivery systems. The
fiscal year 2014 stockpile stewardship and management plan
projects the cost of an integrated warhead for the W78 and W88
systems at $14,000,000,000. Given NNSA's poor cost estimating
practices, the cost is likely to be much higher.
The Committee directs NNSA, in coordination with the
Nuclear Weapons Council, to not preclude a separate W78 life
extension program similar to the W76 life extension program,
which did not require significant design changes. The Committee
is concerned that an integrated warhead may be unnecessarily
complex and expensive, increase uncertainty about certification
and meeting the full range of military characteristics and
stockpile-to-target sequences needed for submarine and
intercontinental ballistic missile systems, and fail to address
aging issues in a timely manner. When NNSA completes its study,
the Committee expects a detailed assessment of the expected
cost savings from an integrated warhead compared to separate
life extension programs for the W78 and W88 and differences, if
any, in reducing the hedge.
W88 Alt 370.--The Committee recommends $169,487,000 as
requested for the W88 Alt 370 arming, fuzing, and firing
system. The Committee supports efforts to make the new W88
arming, fuzing, and firing system adaptable for use on other
systems, such as the W78 and W87, to reduce design and
engineering costs as those systems are upgraded. The Committee
also encourages NNSA to meet the first production unit target
date of December 2018 to match the limited life component
exchange cycle for the W88 neutron generators and gas transfer
systems to reduce transport and handling of this weapon.
Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $282,809,000
for stockpile systems. The Committee has removed congressional
budgetary control points for each individual weapon system to
provide NNSA greater flexibility in addressing unexpected
technical issues. The Committee expects NNSA to continue to
provide the same level of detail on each individual weapon
system in yearly budget justifications. The Committee has moved
funding requested for surveillance activities under stockpile
systems to a new surveillance budget line.
Surveillance.--The Committee recommends $234,647,000 for
surveillance. The Committee consolidated requested funds for
surveillance activities from Stockpile Systems and Stockpile
Services into a new budget line. A new budget line will provide
greater transparency into critical surveillance activities. The
stockpile surveillance program provides information on the
status of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. Through a
variety of tests, the surveillance program ensures that weapon
systems function as expected and detects defects due to
handling, aging, manufacturing, or design. The test results are
used to help support NNSA's annual assessment of the
reliability, safety, and security of the stockpile. The
Committee wants to avoid budget shortfalls that hamper the
ability of the nuclear weapons laboratory directors to complete
all scheduled tests necessary to detect potential aging issues.
Weapons Dismantlement.--The Committee recommends
$56,000,000, an increase of $6,736,000 above the request, for
weapons dismantlement and disposition activities. The increased
funding shall be used to reduce the backlog in dispositioning
nuclear components from dismantled nuclear weapons. The
Committee supports NNSA's goal of dismantling all weapons
retired prior to fiscal year 2009 by the end of fiscal year
2022. The Committee directs NNSA to notify the Committee if it
cannot meet this goal.
Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $838,452,000
for stockpile services. Funding for Tritium Readiness in the
Readiness Campaign has been moved to this account under a newly
named Tritium Production program. Funding associated with
component development under research and development
certification and safety has been moved to a new Technology
Maturation Campaign. Funding associated with surveillance
activities has been moved to a new surveillance budget line.
The Committee is concerned about the Administration's lack
of awareness of the vital role that the Tennessee Valley
Authority plays in our Nation's nuclear weapons enterprise. TVA
is the Department's only supplier of tritium, which is a vital
component in weapons production. If TVA were to stop supplying
the Department with tritium the Department would incur
significant costs to initiate a production process due to
private utilities unwillingness to assume tritium production
responsibilities. That is why it is particularly troubling that
the Administration chose to include a recommendation to
privatize TVA in the President's budget request to Congress.
The inclusion of the recommended sale of TVA caused a massive
drop in value of TVA's bonds, did senseless damage to the
financial holdings of TVA bond holders, and prevented TVA from
being able to issue bonds in the 30 year bond market; all of
which will result in higher electricity rates for TVA
ratepayers. The Administration not only created massive turmoil
with its ill advised recommendation to privatize TVA but the
Administration also failed to address the fundamental question
about how it would acquire tritium. The Committee directs the
Department to submit a tritium acquisition plan to this
Committee and the Office of Management and Budget, no later
than May 1, 2014. The plan should detail the costs to the
Department should TVA no longer be a viable tritium supplier.

CAMPAIGNS

The Committee recommends $1,847,365,000, an increase of
$136,400,000 above the request, for NNSA Campaigns. The
Committee supports efforts to improve models of weapon
performance using experimental data, underground test data, and
advanced computer simulations to better understand the effects
of aging and provide solutions for potential stockpile issues.
However, the Committee is concerned about the increased scope
of work and planned experiments to develop improved intrinsic
safety and security options. The Committee believes planned
experiments related to new safety and security options should
be tied to military requirements and changes in risk
assessments or weapon vulnerabilities that would justify
exploring new surety features. Experiments related to new
surety features should also be weighed against extrinsic
features already available or being developed that may be less
costly and more effective to prevent unauthorized access. The
Committee also encourages NNSA to use the campaigns to reduce
the complexity and costs of life extension programs.
Science Campaign.--The Committee recommends $374,723,000, a
decrease of $23,179,000 below the request, for the Science
Campaign. Within these funds, $34,000,000 shall be used at
Sandia's Z facility to continue critical plutonium and other
physics experiments to support the stockpile stewardship
program. The Committee encourages NNSA to prioritize
fundamental and focused hydrodynamic and subcritical
experiments over large-scale, integral experiments, as
recommended by the JASON group of scientific advisors. The
Committee supports strengthening predictive capabilities by
obtaining critical data from focused and fundamental
experiments that measure key dynamic properties of plutonium
and other relevant materials and that study the interaction of
radiation with matter. Given the cost of integral scaled
subcritical experiments, the Committee encourages NNSA to
prioritize scaled experiments that inform decisions for future
life extension programs. The Committee also directs NNSA to
provide a clear justification if it decides to increase the
frequency of these experiments more than once every 18 months.
Engineering Campaign.--The Committee recommends $90,043,000
for the engineering campaign. Funding for enhanced surety and
funding associated with advanced diagnostics under Enhanced
Surveillance has been moved to a new Technology Maturation
Campaign.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $528,376,000, an increase
of $127,333,000 above the request, for the inertial confinement
fusion ignition and high-yield campaign. The increase reflects
a movement of $113,333,000 for the National Ignition Facility
[NIF] operations in the Site Stewardship Site Operations
account to the Facility Operations and Target Production
account in this campaign to improve transparency of NIF
operating costs. The Committee recommends that no funds within
Site Operations and Maintenance shall be used for NIF. Within
the funds for inertial confinement fusion, $329,000,000,
$66,950,000, $54,000,000, and $6,000,000 shall be used for
inertial confinement fusion activities at the NIF, the
University of Rochester's Omega facility, Sandia National
Laboratory's Z facility, and the Naval Research Laboratory,
respectively. Within the $329,000,000 available for NIF,
$30,000,000 is for the Advanced Radiographic Capability.
The Committee supports NNSA's approach as laid out in the
December 2012 Path Forward Report to Congress on the use of the
National Ignition Facility, which involves more focused
experiments to understand fundamental physics and improve the
predictability of simulation codes for indirect drive ignition
while also supporting polar drive and magnetically driven
ignition experiments as alternative approaches to ignition.
However, the Committee is concerned that NNSA has not developed
clear metrics to measure NIF's progress in achieving ignition
and supporting stockpile stewardship. This Committee's support
for the National Ignition Facility will continue to be
contingent on the unique contributions the facility makes to
advance fundamental understanding of weapons physics. The
Committee directs NNSA to provide the Committee within 60 days
of enactment of this Act a 3-year plan that lays out
significant milestones NIF plans to achieve on the path to
ignition and critical experiments needed to support the
stockpile stewardship program.
The Committee is also concerned by the operating costs of
NIF, which is currently the most expensive experimental
facility at the Department of Energy and NNSA. The Committee
has seen little effort by NNSA to find operating efficiencies
without significantly reducing the shot rate or laser energies.
The Committee directs NNSA to submit to the Committee within
120 days of enactment of this Act a plan to increase the shot
rate at NIF over the next 3 years with a budget of $329,000,000
over the next 3 years.
Consistent with NNSA's other inertial confinement fusion
facilities, the conferees direct that no less than 50 percent
of the facility time on the NIF shall be dedicated to non-
ignition stockpile stewardship experiments. The conferees
further direct that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
follow the advice of the High Energy Density Planning and
Facility Coordination Council, which is made up of nuclear
weapons physics experts from all three NNSA laboratories, to
determine which non-ignition stockpile stewardship experiments
shall be conducted on NIF that meet the highest priorities of
the stockpile stewardship program.
Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee
recommends $600,569,000, an increase of $36,240,000 above the
request, for advanced simulation and computing. Within these
funds, the Committee recommends $69,000,000 for activities
associated with the exascale initiative, such as advanced
system architecture design contracts with vendors and codesign
and advanced weapons code development to effectively use new
high performance computing platforms.
Technology Maturation.--The Committee has replaced the
Readiness Campaign with the Technology Maturation Campaign. The
Committee recommends $253,654,000 for the Technology Maturation
Campaign, which includes funding from Stockpile Services and
the Engineering and Readiness Campaigns. Funding for tritium
activities has been moved to Stockpile Services. The Technology
Maturation Campaign's goal will be to develop and deploy multi-
system weapons component manufacturing capabilities needed to
replace or upgrade technologies in nuclear weapons systems. The
Committee supports efforts to modernize and increase the cost
efficiency of manufacturing processes for the production of
neutron generators, tritium reservoirs, detonators, and other
critical technologies.

NUCLEAR OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $688,031,000, a decrease of
$56,419,000 below the request, for Nuclear Operations and
Capital Construction. The Committee supports NNSA's efforts to
restructure the former Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities [RTBF] account. The Committee has renamed the two
new accounts that encompass previous RTBF functions to provide
greater clarity: (1) Nuclear Operations and Capital
Construction and (2) Site Operations and Maintenance. The
Committee provides no funds for a new plutonium metal
processing activity. Without a plutonium strategy and a
requirement to manufacture new pits, the Committee does not
support efforts to stockpile refined metal.
Corporate Project Management.--The Committee recommends no
funds for Corporate Project Management. The Committee supports
efforts to improve NNSA's project management but the functions
funded under this account should be funded under the Office of
the Administrator.
Pit Environmental Testing Capabilities.--The Committee is
concerned about the costs and security of shipping nuclear
weapons primaries to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
With the successful de-inventory of Superblock and the removal
of all Category I and II special nuclear materials, the
security designation at Livermore was reduced to Category III.
To adjust to these less stringent security requirements,
Livermore reduced the number of highly trained security
personnel and removed some physical security equipment to save
about $40,000,000 a year. NNSA has proposed a surge in physical
security when needed to protect primaries that are transported
to Livermore for environmental testing on the unique
diagnostics that reside at Superblock. The Committee directs
NNSA to submit a report to this Committee by February 1, 2014
that explains whether this capability is needed to support
stockpile stewardship. If this capability is still needed, the
report shall include the results of a cost and benefit analysis
of maintaining the capability at Livermore and surging physical
security forces and defenses when the capability must be used
as opposed to moving the capability to the Pantex site, which
was the recommended option in a 2008 assessment that found
moving the capability to Pantex was feasible and cost
effective.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $438,955,000 as
requested for major capital construction projects.
Project 06-D-141, PED, Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $325,835,000 as
requested to continue design and engineering work as well as
site readiness and site preparation projects. The Committee is
concerned about project management and oversight of contractors
for the UPF project. Most recently, a space fit issue that
required raising the roof of the building by 13 feet to fit
critical equipment resulted in more than $500,000,000 in
additional costs to U.S. taxpayers. The Committee is concerned
that NNSA will not be able to complete the first phase of the
project within the current cost range of $4,200,000,000 to
$6,500,000,000. According to a recent GAO assessment, the space
fit issue used approximately 45 percent of NNSA's contingency
and NNSA contingency planning did not account for such a large
sum of money being needed to address design risk. Several
identified project risks, including all risks related to
construction activities, remain but there is significantly less
funding available to mitigate those risks. The Committee
emphasizes the need for NNSA to improve project management of
major projects and hold contractors accountable for increased
costs and schedule delays.

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Committee recommends $260,181,000 for Nuclear
Counterterrorism and Incident Response. The Committee does not
approve the transfer of this account to Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation and has restored funds in Nuclear Weapons
Activities. Within these funds, $190,181,000 shall be used for
Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response and $70,000,000 for
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation. Within the
funds available for Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response,
the Committee recommends using the funds above the budget
request to equip two additional cities under the joint NNSA and
Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] Stabilization Program,
which can help cities delay or impede threats from nuclear and
radiological dispersal devices until specialized national teams
can respond.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

The Committee recommends $678,981,000 as requested for
nuclear security activities at NNSA sites. The Committee
recommends no funding for the Device Assembly Facility Argus
Installation Project at the Nevada National Security Site
unless NNSA provides the Committee a detailed explanation of
the significant cost growth--from about $5,000,000 to about
$25,000,000--for this project. The Committee understands that
NNSA's contract structure for safeguards and security was a
significant factor in the July 29, 2012 Y-12 security incident.
NNSA had the Management and Operating contractor managing
security systems and a separate prime contractor managing
security personnel, which led to conflicting priorities and a
lack of effective communication between the two contractors.
However, the Committee is concerned that shifting protective
force services at Y-12 away from a separate prime contractor to
the Management and Operating contractor may not have been the
most cost effective means of improving physical security at Y-
12. All internal and independent reviews of the security breach
at Y-12 conclude that the security failure was due to poor
management and oversight, not a lack of protective forces,
training, equipment, or funding. Despite these findings, the
budget request includes an increase of $57,255,000 for
protective forces. The increase is primarily due to shifting
protective force services to the Management and Operating
contractor, which has higher overhead rates than the previous
contractor. The Committee questions whether NNSA's decision to
pay $57,255,000 more for the same protective force services has
resulted in any improvements in security. The Committee directs
NNSA to submit a report to this Committee within 30 days of
enactment of this act. with an explanation as to why the
protective force contract was not competed, plans for future
protective force services at Y-12 that offer the best
protective services at the lowest cost, and why overhead rates
are significantly higher than the previous contractor.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $2,433,524,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 2,140,142,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,180,142,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $2,180,142,000, an increase of
$40,000,000 above the request, for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation. The Committee commends NNSA for making
significant progress in meeting the goal of securing all
vulnerable nuclear materials within 4 years. Since April 2009,
when President Obama announced the 4 year goal, NNSA has
removed over 1,500 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and
plutonium--enough material for approximately 60 nuclear
weapons. As part of this effort, in less than 4 years, NNSA has
removed all highly enriched uranium from 10 countries--for a
cumulative total of 23 countries where a terrorist can no
longer access dangerous nuclear materials. Further, NNSA has
completed security upgrades at dozens of additional buildings
in Russia and other countries to reduce the threat of theft of
weapons usable nuclear material.
Despite the success of securing and permanently removing
dangerous nuclear materials over the last 4 years that
significantly reduces the threat of nuclear terrorism, the
Committee is frustrated that the NNSA budget request does not
make nonproliferation activities a top priority and fails to
provide the necessary resources to complete critical
nonproliferation efforts. Rather, the budget request would let
critical milestones slip. For example, shutting down or
converting 200 research reactors that use highly enriched
uranium, which is a critical step in permanently removing
highly enriched uranium from the remaining countries around the
world, would take 8 years longer and would not be completed
until 2030.
The Committee believes significant quantities of nuclear
and radiological materials are still unsecure and vulnerable to
theft. More than 1,000 kilograms of highly enriched uranium are
still sitting in a handful of countries, large quantities of
plutonium are still at risk, and over a hundred reactors still
need to be converted to low enriched uranium or shut down.
Further, thousands of radiological sources at medical
facilities in the United States and overseas are not well
protected and could be used for radiological dispersal devices,
which could cause serious economic, psychological, and social
disruption.
To address these concerns, the Committee has restored
funding to critical nonproliferation programs that keep America
safe from nuclear terrorism and dispose of dangerous nuclear
and radiological materials.
The Committee directs NNSA to submit by May 1, 2014 a new
4-year strategic plan with metrics, goals, and needed funds to
secure and dispose of the remaining vulnerable nuclear and
radiological materials that present the greatest terrorism risk
to the United States. The plan should describe how and in what
timeframe NNSA plans to remove all highly enriched uranium
[HEU] and plutonium from the remaining countries around the
world and secure the highest risk nuclear and radiological
materials at civilian sites by the end of the decade.

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Committee recommends $497,487,000, which is $73,000,000
above the request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends
$166,000,000 for the HEU reactor conversion program,
$160,000,000 for nuclear and radiological material removal, and
$171,487,000 for nuclear and radiological material protection.
Within the funds available for the HEU reactor conversion
program, the Committee recommends $52,000,000 as requested to
continue supporting NNSA's efforts in developing a capability
which does not currently exist in the U.S. to produce Moly-99--
a medical isotope used in 16 million nuclear medicine
procedures in the U.S. each year--with low enriched uranium by
2016.
The Committee is frustrated by NNSA's failure to provide
sufficient funding in the preceding 3 fiscal years to meet the
target goal of converting or shutting down 200 research
reactors that use highly enriched uranium [HEU] around the
world by 2022. HEU-fueled research reactors have some of the
world's weakest security measures and a determined terrorist
could use HEU reactor fuel for a nuclear device. The Committee
believes permanently eliminating supplies of HEU as quickly as
possible around the world significantly reduces the threat of
nuclear terrorism. Because each reactor conversion takes
approximately 2 to 5 years, depending on a variety of factors,
such as time needed to modify facilities to accept low enriched
uranium fuel, funding is needed in advance to prepare for these
conversions. Because of insufficient planning and funding, the
goal of converting or shutting down HEU-fueled research
reactors has slipped by 8 years--to 2030. The Committee
encourages NNSA to provide sufficient funding in the outyears
to avoid any further delays in this program.
Within the funds available for nuclear and radiological
material removal, the Committee recommends $23,000,000, which
is $5,000,000 above the request, for domestic radiological
material removal. The Committee recommends additional funds to
eliminate the existing backlog of orphaned or unused
radiological sources in the United States and dispose of the
remaining orphaned or unused radiological sources that present
the greatest risk of use in a radiological dispersal device by
2020.
Within the funds available for nuclear and radiological
material protection, the Committee recommends $100,000,000,
which is $49,000,000 above the request, for international
material protection and $71,487,000, which is $15,000,000 above
the request, for domestic material protection. The Committee is
concerned by a lack of sufficient funding in the budget request
to secure 8,500 buildings in the United States and overseas
which legitimately use nuclear and radiological sources but, if
stolen, could be used as effective improvised nuclear devices
or radiological dispersal devices. Radiological materials in
particular are used at hospitals and universities to treat
diseases and for other medical purposes but they have little or
no security. As the only government program that provides
physical protection upgrades for civilian sites with nuclear
and radiological materials, GTRI has only installed security
upgrades at 1,500 civilian buildings, or about 18 percent, that
have high-priority, vulnerable nuclear and radiological
materials. Instead of accelerating efforts to secure these
facilities to address the known risk, the budget request would
have abandoned the goal of securing 8,500 buildings by 2025 and
would have delayed the completion of these activities by close
to 20 years--to 2044. The Committee believes that leaving these
nuclear and radiological materials unsecure for an additional
20 years does not serve the national security interests of the
United States. For this reason, the Committee's recommendation
would allow GTRI to meet its original goal of securing 8,500
buildings by 2025.

INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The Committee recommends $419,625,000, which is $50,000,000
above the request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends
$190,000,000 for Second Line of Defense [SLD]. The Committee
supports NNSA's efforts to reassess and evaluate the
effectiveness of its efforts to deter, detect, and interdict
illicit trafficking in nuclear and radiological material across
international borders and through the global maritime shipping
system. The Committee encourages the SLD program to continue
training foreign law enforcement and customs officials on the
use, repair, and maintenance of portal monitors and other
detection equipment to transition full operational
responsibility and costs for the equipment to the host country
as quickly as possible. The Committee also supports SLD efforts
to complete installation of fixed detection equipment at
vulnerable border crossings and expand the use of mobile
radiation detection systems. The Committee recommends
additional funding to accelerate efforts to install and deploy
fixed and mobile radiation detection systems at border
crossings, airports, and seaports.
The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness and
long-term sustainability of the Megaports initiative. The
Committee directs NNSA to provide this Committee a plan by
March 1, 2014, on the Megaports initiative, which shall
describe how NNSA will ensure the sustainability, including
future upgrades, of Megaports operations after NNSA transfers
radiation detection equipment to partner countries, the
performance measures NNSA uses to evaluate the impact and
effectiveness of this initiative, how many additional ports
NNSA plans to install radiation detection equipment, and the
extent to which NNSA will rely on industry to provide radiation
detection equipment at key seaports.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $408,838,000, an increase of
$20,000,000, to support investments in developing advanced
nuclear detection technologies. Within these funds, the
Committee recommends $177,861,000 for nuclear detonation
detection to meet production requirements of satellite sensors.

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Committee recommends $669,191,000, which is
$166,634,000 above the request, to support plutonium and
uranium disposition activities and construction of the Mixed
Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility [MFFF].
Within these funds, the Committee recommends $113,000,000
for MOX Irradiation, Feedstock, and Transportation
to resume testing for boiling and pressurized water reactor
qualifications and other activities associated with
MOX fuel packaging and transport. Within these
funds, the Committee also recommends $430,634,000, an increase
of $110,634,000 above the request, to continue construction of
MFFF. The Committee is very concerned about the rising costs
and schedule delays for building this facility. The cost
estimate to complete construction has increased by
$2,800,000,000, or by 57 percent--from $4,900,000,000 to
$7,700,000,000. The date for completing construction has also
slipped by 3 years--from 2017 to 2020. Cost increases and
schedule delays are attributable to poor project management by
the prime contractor and weak oversight by Federal officials.
For example, construction began before a baseline design for
the facility was significantly complete, which is contrary to
best practices, and the cost of equipment and supplies was
higher than anticipated, even though the prime contractor and
Federal officials should have anticipated the lack of expertise
by suppliers and subcontractors to fabricate and install
equipment than met stringent requirements for nuclear
facilities.
Despite these cost increases, NNSA has not presented a
better alternative to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons
grade plutonium in the United States and encourage Russia to
dispose of an equivalent amount, which combined would be enough
material for 17,000 nuclear weapons. The Committee generally
supports efforts to find less expensive alternatives to meet
nuclear modernization and nonproliferation goals, but NNSA's
budget request only calls for slowing down the construction of
MFFF while it conducts an assessment of alternative plutonium
disposition strategies. NNSA has not provided this Committee
with any information that would suggest a less expensive
alternative may be available and the results of an alternatives
assessment would not be completed in time to influence the
fiscal year 2015 budget request. The Committee is concerned
that a pause in construction for MFFF will only result in
higher costs and further schedule delays. For these reasons,
the Committee restores construction funds for MFFF.

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommends $128,000,000, a decrease of
$13,675,000 below the request. The Committee provides no funds
for the Global Security Through Science Partnerships because of
a lack of measurable outcomes.

Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $1,079,654,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 1,246,134,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,312,134,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $1,312,134,000, an increase of
$66,000,000 above the request, for Naval Reactors. Within these
funds, the Committee recommends $154,000,000, an increase of
$9,600,000 above the request, and $134,800,000, an increase of
$8,400,000 above the request, for the land-based prototype
refueling overhaul and the development of a new reactor core
for the Ohio-class replacement submarine, respectively. These
additional funds will help Naval Reactors meet schedule and
cost goals for these two critical projects. Within the funds
for Naval Reactors, the Committee also recommends $468,740,000,
an increase of $13,000,000 above the request, for Naval
Reactors Operations and Infrastructure. The increased funding
will help replace aging equipment needed for the land-based
prototype refueling overhaul and provide additional high
performance computing capabilities to avoid more expensive
physical testing of components. Within funds for Naval
Reactors, the Committee also recommends $104,773,000, an
increase of $35,000,000 above the request, for construction
projects. These additional funds will help mitigate delays to
the construction of the radiological and prototype staff
buildings needed to support the land-based prototype refueling
overhaul and train sailors for nuclear operations. Additional
funding will also accelerate efforts to upgrade aging security
infrastructure at Naval Reactors sites.

Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $409,869,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 397,784,000
Committee recommendation................................ 397,784,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $397,784,000 as requested. Within
these funds, the Committee recommends $67,373,000 to support
nuclear nonproliferation activities and the expanded scope of
work to secure and remove nuclear and radiological materials
recommended by this Committee.
The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of
Federal site office staff in providing the necessary oversight
of management and operating contractors. Recent studies,
reviews, and audits have revealed weak Federal oversight at
site offices that contributed to lapses in safety and security
and completing construction projects on time and on budget at
the national security labs and sites. The Committee believes
the site offices, given their proximity and knowledge of the
labs' and sites' operations, can be effective tools in managing
contractors and identifying management issues early. However,
the Committee is concerned that the site offices may not have
the necessary skills or authority to conduct the appropriate
level of oversight. The Committee directs NNSA to submit a
report to this Committee by May 1, 2014 on ways it plans to
strengthen site office oversight of safety, security, and
project execution activities at the labs and sites, including
strategies to hire staff with the necessary skills and changes,
if needed, to roles, responsibilities, and authorities for site
office staff to exercise better oversight.
The Committee is also concerned about increasing indirect
costs, such as management, administrative, and facility costs,
at the nuclear weapons laboratories. A recent GAO review found
that management and operating contractors for the NNSA labs
differ in how they classify and allocate indirect costs, which
makes it difficult to compare indirect costs across the labs
and even at each lab over time. Without consistent and reliable
information about indirect costs, NNSA cannot determine their
reasonableness and whether there are opportunities to reduce
costs so more dollars go toward mission critical activities. As
a result, the Committee directs NNSA to submit a plan to this
Committee by June 1, 2014 that would establish a standardized
and consistent indirect cost reporting system for the NNSA labs
to be able to compare indirect costs across the labs, assess
the reasonableness of indirect costs, and establish incentives
to reduce those costs.
Further, the Committee is concerned about award term
extensions for NNSA sites that do not meet minimum threshold
requirements for performance. The Committee believes award term
extensions should be based on performance that exceeds
expectations with goals and metrics set by NNSA and the
management and operating contractor. Minimum threshold
requirements create an incentive for the contractor to at a
minimum meet, if not exceed, safety, security, programmatic,
and operational requirements. Award term extensions create a
long term financial liability for the Federal Government and
should be awarded based on merit. The Committee believes NNSA
must provide an explanation if at-risk award fees are adjusted
and award term extensions granted that differ from field office
recommendations. This Act includes a provision that requires a
30-day advance notification to this Committee with a detailed
explanation of any waiver or adjustment made by NNSA's fee
determining official to at-risk award fees for management and
operating contractors that result in award term extensions.

Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $5,012,954,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 4,853,909,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,146,536,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental
Cleanup is $5,146,536,000. Within the total provided, the
Department is directed to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker
Training Program.
Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2014, the
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between
operating expense funded projects within the controls listed
below using guidance contained in the Department's budget
execution manual (DOE M 135.1-1A, chapter IV). All capital
construction line item projects remain separate controls from
the operating projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the
House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all
reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the
Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of
congressional response. The Committee recommends the following
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2014:
--Closure Sites;
--Hanford Site;
--Idaho National Laboratory;
--NNSA Sites;
--Oak Ridge Reservation;
--Office of River Protection;
--Savannah River Site;
--Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
--Program Direction;
--Program Support;
--Technology Development and Deployment;
--Safeguards and Security; and
--All Capital Construction Line Items, regardless of site.
Internal Reprogramming Authority.--The new reprogramming
control points above obviates, in most cases, the need for
internal reprogramming authority. However, at the few sites to
which the internal reprogramming statute still applies,
Environmental Management site managers may transfer up to
$5,000,000, one time, between accounts listed above to reduce
health and safety risks, gain cost savings, or complete
projects, as long as a program or project is not increased or
decreased by more than $5,000,000 in total during the fiscal
year.
The reprogramming authority--either formal or internal--may
not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding
levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased
by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within
30 days after the use of the internal reprogramming authority.
Closure Sites.--The Committee recommends $4,702,000 for
Closure Sites activities.
Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $961,785,000 for
Richland Operations. Additional funding is provided for work
related to the deconstruction of the Plutonium Finishing Plant,
K basin sludge removal, and community and regulatory support.
Within available funds in the River Corridor control point, the
Department is directed to carry out maintenance and public
safety efforts at the B Reactor, and the Hazardous Materials
Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] facilities.
Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends
$380,010,000 for Idaho National Laboratory.
NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $344,676,000 for NNSA
sites, of which $250,000,000 is for work at Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends
$214,936,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation.
Building 3019.--The Committee recommends $40,229,000 for
the cleanup of Building 3019. This project will result in
saving some $6,000,000 in annual security costs at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory once complete. The Committee directs the
Department to provide an updated plan within 60 days of
enactment of this act that keeps the project on a 5-year
schedule.
Oak Ridge Reservation Mercury Containment.--Remediation of
mercury contamination at the Oak Ridge Reservation from work
performed at the Y-12 site is a high priority for the
Environmental Management program. Full site remediation is a
multiyear large scale cleanup endeavor that the Environmental
Management program cannot afford to undertake at this time.
However given the significant risk to public health the
Committee urges the Department to continue to pursue efforts to
prevent mercury from escaping into the environment. The
Committee recommends $16,000,000 to continue planning,
engineering and construction of the water treatment facility to
be located at outfall 200 at the Y-12 site, which will reduce
the mercury being released into the East Fork of Poplar Creek.
Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommends
$1,210,216,000 for the Office of River Protection.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends
$1,194,261,000 for the Savannah River site. This includes an
increase of $106,000,000 for tank waste activities.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.--The Committee recommends
$222,390,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The increase
in funding is to address the maintenance backlog which could
threaten WIPP operations.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
recommends $24,091,000 for technology development and
deployment.

Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $821,717,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 749,080,000
Committee recommendation................................ 762,080,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $762,080,000, an increase of
$13,000,000 above the request, for Other Defense Activities.
Within these funds, $205,900,000 is for Specialized Security
Activities. Within the funds for Other Defense Activities, the
Committee recommends $255,339,000, an increase of $3,422,000
above the request, for the Office of Health, Safety, and
Security. The increase is to support additional security
reviews of Category I special nuclear material sites, which
should include no notice and limited notice performance
testing. A recent assessment of NNSA's oversight of security
operations after the Y-12 security incident found that the
Office of Health, Safety, and Security, which is responsible
for independent oversight, had been directed as part of
governance reform to reduce the frequency and rigor of its
security reviews of NNSA. As NNSA implements needed security
reforms, the Committee encourages the Office of Health, Safety,
and Security, through its independent reviews, to monitor and
assess whether NNSA's security reforms, including changes in
organizational structure and Federal oversight of contractors'
security measures and performance assessments, has improved
security of the labs and sites.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Bonneville Power Administration

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000-square-
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets
surplus power with Canada and California. The Committee
recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal
year 2014.

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

Appropriations, 2013\1\.................................................
Budget estimate, 2014...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee
recommends a net appropriation of $0 as the appropriations are
offset by collections.

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $11,868,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 11,892,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,892,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

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

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

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $133,920,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 95,930,000
Committee recommendation................................ 95,930,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

For the Western Area Power Administration, the Committee
recommends a net appropriation of $95,930,000, the same as the
budget request. In cooperation with its customers, the Western
Area Power Administration [WAPA] shall continue its efforts to
build a more secure and sustainable electricity grid by leading
the utility sector in efforts to maximize the use and
integration of energy efficiency, renewable energy, distributed
generation, and demand response, as well as improving
transmission access between regions and interconnections, in a
manner consistent with the core responsibility of WAPA to
deliver power as inexpensively as possible to the preference
customers.

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $220,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 420,000
Committee recommendation................................ 420,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

For the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund,
the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $420,000.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $304,600
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 304,600
Committee recommendation................................ 304,600

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. -$304,600
Budget estimate, 2014................................... -304,600
Committee recommendation................................ -304,600

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Committee recommendation
Budget estimate recommendation compared to
budget estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY PROGRAMS

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D:
Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies...................... 100,000 100,000 ...............
Bioenergy technologies................................... 282,000 245,000 -37,000
Solar energy............................................. 356,500 310,000 -46,500
Wind energy.............................................. 144,000 110,000 -34,000
Geothermal technologies.................................. 60,000 60,000 ...............
Water power.............................................. 55,000 59,000 +4,000
Vehicle technologies..................................... 575,000 415,000 -160,000
Building technologies.................................... 300,000 224,000 -70,000
Advanced manufacturing................................... 365,000 215,985 -149,015
Federal energy management program........................ 36,000 30,000 -6,000
Facilities and infrastructure:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL].......... 46,000 46,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Facilities and infrastructure............ 46,000 46,000 ...............

Program direction........................................ 185,000 185,000 ...............
Strategic programs....................................... 36,000 28,000 -8,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D 2,540,500 2,033,985 -506,515

Weatherization and intragovernmental:
Weatherization:
Weatherization assistance............................ 181,000 187,000 ...............
Training and technical assistance.................... 3,000 3,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 184,000 190,000 ...............

Other:
State energy program grants.......................... 57,000 53,000 -4,000
Tribal energy activities............................. 7,000 10,000 +3,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 64,000 63,000 -1,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weatherization and intragovernmental..... 248,000 247,000 -1,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy... 2,788,500 2,280,985 -507,515

Rescission................................................... -12,800 ............... +12,800
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY........... 2,775,700 2,280,985 -494,715
==================================================
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Research and development:
Electricity systems hub.................................. 20,000 ............... -20,000
Clean energy transmission and reliability................ 32,000 32,000 ...............
Smart grid research and development...................... 14,400 14,400 ...............
Energy storage........................................... 15,000 15,000 ...............
Cyber security for energy delivery systems............... 38,000 38,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 119,400 99,400 -20,000

National electricity delivery................................ 6,000 6,000 ...............
Infrastructure security and energy restoration............... 16,000 16,000 ...............
Program direction............................................ 27,615 27,615 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.. 169,015 149,015 -20,000
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY..... 169,015 149,015 -20,000
==================================================
NUCLEAR ENERGY

Research and development:
Nuclear energy enabling technologies..................... 62,300 62,300 ...............
Small modular reactor licensing technical support........ 70,000 70,000 ...............
Reactor concepts RD&D.................................... 72,500 62,500 -10,000
Fuel cycle research and development...................... 165,100 175,100 +10,000
International nuclear energy cooperation................. 2,500 2,500 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 372,400 372,400 ...............

Infrastructure:
Radiological facilities management:
Space and defense infrastructure..................... ............... 15,000 +15,000
Research reactor infrastructure...................... 5,000 5,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 5,000 20,000 +15,000

INL facilities management:
INL operations and infrastructure.................... 165,162 150,162 -15,000
Construction:
13-D-905 RHLLW disposal project.................. 16,398 16,398 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction......................... 16,398 16,398 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, INL facilities management............ 181,560 166,560 -15,000

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security................... 94,000 94,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Infrastructure............................... 280,560 280,560 ...............

Program direction............................................ 87,500 87,500 ...............
Use of prior year balances................................... -5,000 -5,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear Energy............................... 735,460 735,460 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY.................................. 735,460 735,460 ...............
==================================================
Race to the top for energy efficiency and grid modernization. 200,000 ............... -200,000

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

CCS and power systems:
Carbon capture........................................... 112,000 112,000 ...............
Carbon storage........................................... 61,095 61,095 ...............
Advanced energy systems.................................. 48,000 40,000 -8,000
Cross-cutting research................................... 20,525 20,525 ...............
NETL coal research and development....................... 35,011 35,011 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CCS and power systems........................ 276,631 268,631 -8,000

Natural gas technologies..................................... 17,000 20,000 +3,000
Unconventional fossil energy technologies from petroleum--oil ............... 5,000 +5,000
technologies................................................
Program direction............................................ 115,753 115,753 ...............
Plant and capital equipment.................................. 13,294 13,294 ...............
Fossil energy environmental restoration...................... 5,897 5,897 ...............
Special recruitment programs................................. 700 700 ...............
Use of prior year balances................................... -8,700 -8,700 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fossil Energy Research and Development....... 420,575 420,575 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.......... 420,575 420,575 ...............
==================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES....................... 20,000 20,000 ...............
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE.................................. 189,400 189,400 ...............

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve........................... 8,000 8,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE.............. 8,000 8,000 ...............
==================================================
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION............................ 117,000 117,000 ...............

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA)......................... 2,545 2,545 ...............
Gaseous diffusion plants..................................... 96,222 96,222 ...............
Small sites.................................................. 50,189 70,189 +20,000
West Valley demonstration project............................ 64,000 64,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Non-defense environmental cleanup............ 212,956 232,956 +20,000
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP............... 212,956 232,956 +20,000
==================================================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Oak Ridge.................................................... 177,064 177,064 ...............
Paducah...................................................... 262,057 262,057 ...............
Portsmouth................................................... 91,818 91,818 ...............
Pension and community and regulatory support................. 23,884 23,884 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, UED&D Fund................................... 554,823 554,823 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, UED&D FUND...................................... 554,823 554,823 ...............
==================================================
SCIENCE

Advanced scientific computing research....................... 465,593 493,773 +28,180

Basic energy sciences:
Research................................................. 1,741,111 1,683,862 -57,249
Construction:
07-SC-06 Project engineering and design [PED] 26,300 26,300 ...............
National Synchrotron light source II [NSLS-II]......
13-SC-10 LINAC coherent light source, II [SLAC]...... 95,000 95,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 121,300 121,300 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Basic energy sciences.................... 1,862,411 1,805,162 -57,249

Biological and environmental research........................ 625,347 625,347 ...............
Fusion energy sciences....................................... 458,324 458,324 ...............

High-energy physics:
Research................................................. 741,521 751,590 +10,069
Construction:
11-SC-40 Project engineering and design [PED] long ............... 20,000 +20,000
baseline neutrino experiment, FNAL..................
11-SC-41 Project engineering and design [PED] muon to 35,000 35,000 ...............
electron conversion experiment, FNAL................
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................................... 35,000 55,000 +20,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, High-energy physics.................... 776,521 806,590 +30,069

Nuclear physics:
Operations and maintenance............................... 544,438 544,438 ...............
Construction:
06-SC-01 Project engineering and design [PED] 12 GeV 25,500 25,500 ...............
continuous electron beam accelerator facility
upgrade, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
facility (was project 07-SC-001), Newport News, VA..
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear physics........................ 569,938 569,938 ...............

Workforce development for teachers and scientists............ 16,500 16,500 ...............

Science laboratories infrastructure:
Infrastructure support:
Payment in lieu of taxes............................. 1,385 1,385 ...............
Facilities and infrastructure........................ 900 900 ...............
Oak Ridge landlord................................... 5,951 5,951 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 8,236 8,236 ...............

Construction:
13-SC-70 Utilities upgrade, FNAL..................... 34,900 34,900 ...............
13-SC-71 Utility infrastructure modernization at 29,200 29,200 ...............
TJNAF...............................................
12-SC-70 Science and user support building, SLAC..... 25,482 25,482 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 89,582 89,582 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure...... 97,818 97,818 ...............

Safeguards and security...................................... 87,000 87,000 ...............
Science program direction.................................... 193,300 192,300 -1,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science...................................... 5,152,752 5,152,752 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SCIENCE......................................... 5,152,752 5,152,752 ...............
==================================================
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY

ARPA-E projects.............................................. 344,890 344,890 ...............
Program direction............................................ 34,110 34,110 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENER- GY..... 379,000 379,000 ...............
==================================================
TITLE 17--INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

Administrative expenses...................................... 48,000 42,000 -6,000
Offsetting collection........................................ -22,000 -22,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, TITLE 17--INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE 26,000 20,000 -6,000
PROGRAM...............................................
==================================================
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM

Administrative expenses...................................... 6,000 6,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN 6,000 6,000 ...............
PROGRAM...............................................
==================================================
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary:
Program direction................................ 5,008 5,008 ...............
Chief Financial Officer.............................. 51,204 47,825 -3,379
Management........................................... 55,699 57,599 +1,900
Human capital management............................. 24,488 24,488 ...............
Chief Information Officer............................ 35,401 35,401 ...............
Congressional and intergovernmental affairs:
Program direction................................ 4,700 4,700 ...............
Economic impact and diversity........................ 7,047 6,197 -850
General counsel...................................... 33,053 33,053 ...............
Policy and international affairs..................... 20,518 ............... -20,518
Energy policy and systems analysis................... ............... 16,181 +16,181
International affairs................................ ............... 12,518 +12,518
Public affairs....................................... 3,597 3,597 ...............
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.......... 2,506 2,506 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and expenses.................... 243,221 249,073 +5,852

Program support:
Economic impact and diversity........................ 2,759 2,759 ...............
Policy analysis and system studies................... 441 441 ...............
Environmental policy studies......................... 520 520 ...............
Climate change technology program (program support).. 5,482 5,482 ...............
Cybersecurity and secure communications.............. 30,795 30,795 ...............
Corporate IT program support [CIO]................... 15,866 15,866 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program support.......................... 55,863 55,863 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Administrative operations................ 299,084 304,936 +5,852

Cost of work for others.................................. 48,537 48,537 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental administration.................. 347,621 353,473 +5,852

Funding from other defense activities........................ -118,836 -118,836 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental administration (gross)............. 228,785 234,637 +5,852
==================================================
Miscellaneous revenues....................................... -108,188 -108,188 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net)............... 120,597 126,449 +5,852
==================================================
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.............................. 42,120 42,120 ...............
==================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS................................. 11,129,398 10,434,535 -694,863
==================================================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work:
B61 Life extension program............................... 537,044 369,000 -168,044
W76 Life extension program............................... 235,382 235,382 ...............
W78 Life extension study................................. 72,691 72,691 ...............
W88 Alt 370.............................................. 169,487 169,487 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 1,014,604 846,560 -168,044

Stockpile systems........................................ ............... 282,809 +282,809
B61 Stockpile systems................................ 83,536 ............... -83,536
W76 Stockpile systems................................ 47,187 ............... -47,187
W78 Stockpile systems................................ 54,381 ............... -54,381
W80 Stockpile systems................................ 50,330 ............... -50,330
B83 Stockpile systems................................ 54,948 ............... -54,948
W87 Stockpile systems................................ 101,506 ............... -101,506
W88 Stockpile systems................................ 62,600 ............... -62,600
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 454,488 282,809 -171,679

Surveillance............................................. ............... 234,647 +234,647
Weapons dismantlement and disposition:
Operations and maintenance........................... 49,264 56,000 +6,736
Stockpile services:
Production support................................... 321,416 321,416 ...............
Research and development support..................... 26,349 24,928 -1,421
R&D certification and safety......................... 191,259 80,824 -110,435
Management, technology, and production............... 214,187 162,640 -51,547
Plutonium infrastructure sustainment................. 156,949 156,949 ...............
Tritium production................................... ............... 91,695 +91,695
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 910,160 838,452 -71,708
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Directed stockpile work.................. 2,428,516 2,258,468 -170,048

Campaigns:
Science campaign:
Advanced certification............................... 54,730 59,747 +5,017
Primary assessment technologies...................... 109,231 93,000 -16,231
Dynamic materials properties......................... 116,965 105,000 -11,965
Advanced radiography................................. 30,509 30,509 ...............
Secondary assessment technologies.................... 86,467 86,467 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 397,902 374,723 -23,179

Engineering campaign:
Enhanced surety...................................... 51,771 ............... -51,771
Weapons system engineering assessment technology..... 23,727 23,727 ...............
Nuclear survivability................................ 19,504 19,504 ...............
Enhanced surveillance................................ 54,909 46,812 -8,097
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 149,911 90,043 -59,868

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high-yield
campaign:
Ignition............................................. 80,245 80,245 ...............
Support of other stockpile programs.................. 15,001 15,001 ...............
Diagnostics, cryogenics, and experimental support.... 59,897 59,897 ...............
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............. 5,024 5,024 ...............
Joint program in high-energy density laboratory plas- 8,198 8,198 ...............
mas................................................
Facility operations and target production............ 232,678 360,011 +127,333
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 401,043 528,376 +127,333

Advanced simulation and computing............................ 564,329 600,569 +36,240
Technology maturation campaign............................... ............... 253,654 +253,654

Readiness campaign:
Component manufacturing development...................... 106,085 ............... -106,085
Tritium readiness........................................ 91,695 ............... -91,695
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 197,780 ............... -197,780
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Campaigns.................................... 1,710,965 1,847,365 +136,400

Nuclear programs:
Nuclear operations capability............................ 265,937 ............... -265,937
Capabilities based investments........................... 39,558 ............... -39,558

Nuclear operations and capital construction:
Nuclear operations....................................... ............... 209,518 +209,518
Nuclear facility upgrades................................ ............... 39,558 +39,558

Construction:
12-D-301 TRU waste facilities, LANL...................... 26,722 26,722 ...............
11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL........ 30,679 30,679 ...............
07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility 55,719 55,719 ...............
upgrade project, LANL...................................
06-D-141 PED/Construction, Uranium capabilities 325,835 325,835 ...............
replacement project, Y-12...............................
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................. 744,450 688,031 -56,419

Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment................................. 122,072 122,072 ...............
Program direction........................................ 97,118 97,118 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 219,190 219,190 ...............

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response................... ............... 260,181 +260,181
Site stewardship............................................. 1,706,007 ............... -1,706,007
Site operations and maintained............................... ............... 1,535,893 +1,535,893
Defense nuclear security..................................... 664,981 664,981 ...............
Construction:
08-D-701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los 14,000 14,000 ...............
Alamos National Laboratory..........................
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense nuclear security............... 678,981 678,981 ...............

Information technology and cyber security.................... 148,441 148,441 ...............
Legacy contractor pensions................................... 279,597 279,597 ...............
Use of prior year balances................................... -47,738 -47,738 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons activities........................... 7,868,409 7,868,409 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.............................. 7,868,409 7,868,409 ...............
==================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D......................... 388,838 408,838 +20,000
Domestic uranium enrichment research, development, 141,675 128,000 -13,675
nonproliferation, and international security................
International materials protection and cooperation........... 369,625 419,625 +50,000

Fissile materials disposition:
U.S. plutonium disposition............................... 157,557 213,557 +56,000
U.S. uranium disposition................................. 25,000 25,000 ...............
Construction:
MOX fuel fabrication facilities:
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, 320,000 430,634 +110,634
Savannah River, SC..............................
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction....................... 320,000 430,634 +110,634
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Fissile materials disposition......... 502,557 669,191 +166,634

Global threat reduction initiative........................... 424,487 497,487 +73,000
Legacy contractor pensions................................... 93,703 93,703 ...............
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response system............ 181,293 ............... -181,293
Counterterrorism and counterproliferation programs........... 74,666 ............... -74,666
Use of prior year balances................................... -36,702 -36,702 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation............. 2,140,142 2,180,142 +40,000
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION................ 2,140,142 2,180,142 +40,000
==================================================
NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development................................... 419,400 419,400 ...............
OHIO replacement reactor systems development................. 126,400 134,800 +8,400
S8G Prototype refueling...................................... 144,400 154,000 +9,600
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure................. 455,740 468,740 +13,000

Construction:
14-D-902 KL Materials characterization laboratory 1,000 1,000 ...............
expansion, KAPL.........................................
14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, 45,400 45,400 ...............
NRF.....................................................
13-D-905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL.... 21,073 21,073 ...............
13-D-904 KS Radiological work and storage building, KSO.. 600 2,600 +2,000
08-D-190, Project engineering and design, Expended Core 1,700 1,700 ...............
Facility M-290 recovering discharge station, Naval
Reactor Facility, ID....................................
Other construction costs................................. ............... 33,000 +33,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................. 69,773 104,773 +35,000

Program direction............................................ 44,404 44,404 ...............
Use of prior year balances................................... -13,983 -13,983 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS.................................. 1,246,134 1,312,134 +66,000
==================================================
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.................................. 397,784 397,784 ...............
==================================================
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION........ 11,652,469 11,758,469 +106,000
==================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Closure sites................................................ 4,702 4,702 ...............

Hanford site:
Central plateau remediation.............................. 513,450 533,450 +20,000
River corridor and other cleanup operations.............. 393,634 408,634 +15,000
Richland community and regulatory support................ 14,701 19,701 +5,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Hanford site.................................... 921,785 961,785 +40,000

Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition...................... 362,100 377,100 +15,000
Idaho community and regulatory support................... 2,910 2,910 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Idaho National Laboratory....................... 365,010 380,010 +15,000

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.............................. 309,676 344,676 +35,000

Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D&D.................................. 73,716 89,716 +16,000
OR cleanup and disposition............................... 115,855 120,855 +5,000
OR reservation community and regulatory support.......... 4,365 4,365 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation........................... 193,936 214,936 +21,000

Office of River Protection:
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant:
01-D-416 A-E/ORP-0060/Major construction............. 690,000 690,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. 690,000 690,000 ...............

Tank Farm activities:
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition.. 520,216 520,216 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of River Protection.................. 1,210,216 1,210,216 ...............

Savannah River site:
Savannah River community and regulatory support.......... 11,210 11,210 ...............
SR site risk management operations....................... 432,491 432,491 ...............
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 552,560 658,560 +106,000
disposition.............................................
Construction:
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 92,000 92,000 ...............
River...............................................
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................................... 92,000 92,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Savannah River site....................... 1,088,261 1,194,261 +106,000

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.................................. 203,390 222,390 +19,000
Program direction............................................ 280,784 320,784 +40,000
Program support.............................................. 17,979 17,979 ...............
Safeguards and security...................................... 234,079 250,706 +16,627
Technology development....................................... 24,091 24,091 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense environmental clean up............... 4,853,909 5,146,536 +292,627
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP.................. 4,853,909 5,146,536 +292,627
==================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP (LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL)......... 463,000 ............... -463,000

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Health, safety, and security:
Health, safety, and security............................. 143,616 147,038 +3,422
Program direction........................................ 108,301 108,301 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Health, safety and security..................... 251,917 255,339 +3,422

Specialized security activities.............................. 196,322 205,900 +9,578

Office of Legacy Management:
Legacy management........................................ 163,271 163,271 ...............
Program direction........................................ 13,712 13,712 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Legacy Management..................... 176,983 176,983 ...............

Defense related administrative support....................... 118,836 118,836 ...............
Office of hearings and appeals............................... 5,022 5,022 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................ 749,080 762,080 +13,000
==================================================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES................ 17,718,458 17,667,085 -51,373
==================================================
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS\1\

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and wheeling.......................... 93,284 93,284 ...............
Program direction.................................... 7,750 7,750 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance................ 101,034 101,034 ...............

Less alternative financing [PPW]......................... -15,203 -15,203 ...............
Offsetting collections................................... -85,831 -85,831 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION............... ............... ............... ...............
==================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses................................... 13,598 13,598 ...............
Purchase power and wheeling.......................... 52,000 52,000 ...............
Program direction.................................... 29,939 29,939 ...............
Construction......................................... 6,227 6,227 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance................ 101,764 101,764 ...............

Less alternative financing............................... -14,308 -14,308 ...............
Offsetting collections................................... -75,564 -75,564 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION............... 11,892 11,892 ...............
==================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
Construction and rehabilitation...................... 122,437 122,437 ...............
Operation and maintenance............................ 82,843 82,843 ...............
Purchase power and wheeling.......................... 407,109 407,109 ...............
Program direction.................................... 217,709 217,709 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance................ 830,098 830,098 ...............

Less alternative financing............................... -293,349 -293,349 ...............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 108-477, Public Law -230,738 -230,738 ...............
109-103)................................................
Offsetting collections (Public Law 98-381)............... -6,092 -6,092 ...............
Offsetting collections (for program direction)........... -168,193 -168,193 ...............
Offsetting collections (for O&M)......................... -35,796 -35,796 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION............... 95,930 95,930 ...............
==================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance................................ 6,196 6,196 ...............
Offsetting collections................................... -4,911 -4,911 ...............
Less alternative financing............................... -865 -865 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD O&M FUND..................... 420 420 ...............
==================================================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS................. 108,242 108,242 ...............
==================================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission..................... 304,600 304,600 ...............
FERC revenues............................................ -304,600 -304,600 ...............
==================================================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY...................... 28,956,098 28,209,862 -746,236
(Total amount appropriated)........................ (28,968,898) (28,209,862) (-759,036)
(Rescissions)...................................... (-12,800) ............... (+12,800)
==================================================
SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS

Energy efficiency and renewable energy....................... 2,775,700 2,280,985 -494,715
Electricity delivery and energy reliability.................. 169,015 149,015 -20,000
Nuclear energy............................................... 735,460 735,460 ...............
Fossil Energy Research and Development....................... 420,575 420,575 ...............
Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves....................... 20,000 20,000 ...............
Strategic petroleum reserves................................. 189,400 189,400 ...............
Northeast home heating oil reserve........................... 8,000 8,000 ...............
Energy Information Administration............................ 117,000 117,000 ...............
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup............................ 212,956 232,956 +20,000
Uranium enrichment D&D fund.................................. 554,823 554,823 ...............
Science...................................................... 5,152,752 5,152,752 ...............
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy..................... 379,000 379,000 ...............
Title 17 Innovative technology loan guarantee program........ 26,000 20,000 -6,000
Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan program...... 6,000 6,000 ...............
Departmental administration.................................. 120,597 126,449 +5,852
Office of the Inspector General.............................. 42,120 42,120 ...............

Atomic energy defense activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons activities................................... 7,868,409 7,868,409 ...............
Defense nuclear nonproliferation..................... 2,140,142 2,180,142 +40,000
Naval reactors....................................... 1,246,134 1,312,134 +66,000
Office of the Administrator.......................... 397,784 397,784 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration. 11,652,469 11,758,469 +106,000

Defense environmental cleanup............................ 4,853,909 5,146,536 +292,627
Defense environmental cleanup (legislative proposal)..... 463,000 ............... -463,000
Other defense activities................................. 749,080 762,080 +13,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities................ 17,718,458 17,667,085 -51,373

Power marketing administrations:\1\
Southwestern Power Administration........................ 11,892 11,892 ...............
Western Area Power Administration........................ 95,930 95,930 ...............
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund........ 420 420 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing Administrations................. 108,242 108,242 ...............

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses.................................... 304,600 304,600 ...............
Revenues................................................. -304,600 -304,600 ...............

Travel efficiencies.......................................... ............... ............... ...............
==================================================
Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy........ 28,756,098 28,209,862 -546,236
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling
expenditures. Offsetting collection totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power
purchase and wheeling.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

The following list of general provisions is recommended by
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions
which have been included in previous Energy and Water
Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
Section 301. Language is included on unexpended balances.
Section 302. Language is included specifically authorizing
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year
2014 Intelligence Authorization Act.
Section 303. Language is included related to transfer
authority.
Section 304. The Committee has included a provision related
to nuclear safety requirements.
Section 305. The Committee has included language related to
independent cost estimates.
Section 306. Language is included related to the provision
of uranium.
Section 307. The Committee has included a provision
modifying an annual review.
Section 308. The Committee has included a provision on
appointments.
Section 309. The Committee has included a provision on a
pilot program related to consolidated storage of spent nuclear
fuel.
Section 310. The Committee has included a provision to
repeal a reporting requirement.
Section 311. The Committee has included a provision
amending a reporting requirement.
Section 312. The Committee has included language regarding
New Brunswick Laboratory.
Section 313. The Committee has included language reducing
contractor foreign travel.
Section 314. The Committee has included language on first
tier subcontracts.
Section 315. The Committee has included language on a
laboratory commission.
Section 316. The Committee has included language on waiver
or adjustment notification.

TITLE IV

The Committee believes it is the mission of all the
regional commissions to maximize spending on programs rather
than personnel. Given the budget cuts the regional commissions
have experienced in recent years, the Committee directs the
regional commissions to provide a detailed accounting of all
personnel costs, including an accounting for employees who are
designated as non-Federal employees, in their annual budget
request to Congress. If the regional commissions are to
continue to be successful they need to show they are maximizing
the public good and making sound personnel management
decisions.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $68,126,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 64,618,000
Committee recommendation................................ 68,200,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission
[ARC] is an economic development agency composed of 13
Appalachian States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the
President. For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends
$68,200,000 for the ARC.

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $29,072,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 29,915,000
Committee recommendation................................ 29,915,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $29,915,000 for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

Delta Regional Authority

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $11,654,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 11,319,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends
$12,000,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to
assist the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining
basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and
opportunities for economic development.

Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $10,658,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 7,396,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership
responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job
training, and other economic development services in rural
areas throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 2014, the Committee
recommends $10,000,000.

Northern Border Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $1,494,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 1,355,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Northern Border
Regional Commission.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $1,025,186,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 1,043,937,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,043,937,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. -$899,726,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... -920,721,000
Committee recommendation................................ -920,721,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. $125,460,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 123,216,000
Committee recommendation................................ 123,216,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for fiscal year 2014 is $1,043,937,000. This amount
is offset by estimated revenues of $920,721,000 resulting in a
net appropriation of $123,216,000.
The Committee is concerned about the security of high-risk
radiological sources at hospitals and other medical facilities.
Radiological materials are commonly found in equipment used by
U.S. medical facilities to treat, among other things, cancer
patients, but could also be used to construct a dirty bomb. A
dirty bomb attack in the United States would have serious
economic and psychological consequences. It is therefore in the
interest of the Federal Government to ensure that all high-risk
radiological materials in U.S. hospitals and medical facilities
are secured as quickly as possible from potential theft or
sabotage.
A September 2012 GAO report found that the NRC's
requirements for medical facilities to secure radiological
sources are not adequate. NRC's security controls do not
prescribe specific measures that licensees should take to
secure their sources, such as specific direction on the use of
cameras, alarms, and other physical security measures. GAO
visited medical facilities that implemented NRC's security
controls and found that radiological sources were vulnerable to
possible theft or sabotage. The Committee is encouraged by
NRC's recent efforts to strengthen security training of
inspectors and develop a best practices guide by November 1,
2013, that would help licensees determine how best to
adequately secure equipment containing high-risk radiological
sources and conduct trustworthiness and reliability
determinations. However, the Committee does not believe these
efforts are sufficient to secure these radiological materials
and meet the intent of GAO's recommendations. The Committee
therefore directs NRC to submit a plan to this Committee by
March 1, 2014, that would strengthen NRC's security
requirements, including new rulemaking if necessary, to provide
hospitals and medical facilities with specific measures they
must take to develop and sustain a more effective security
program, including specific direction on the use of cameras,
alarms, and other relevant security measures. The Committee
believes the new requirements should be more prescriptive and
establish minimum security measures each facility must take to
address the risk posed by radiological sources.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $10,838,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 11,105,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,105,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2013\1\\2\.............................. -$9,754,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... -9,994,000
Committee recommendation................................ -9,994,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $1,084,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 1,111,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,111,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $1,111,000.

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $3,393,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 3,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,400,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to
evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Board reports its findings no fewer than two times a year to
Congress and to the Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2014,
the Committee recommends $3,400,000.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects

Appropriations, 2013\1\................................. $998,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000

\1\Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public
Law 112-25.

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent
agency in the executive branch on December 13, 2006. The
Committee recommends $1,000,000. The Committee notes that the
Office of the Federal Coordinator is legally allowed to receive
funding from the companies for its work. The Committee urges
the agency to take advantage of this potential funding source
as the work of the agency directly benefits the companies.

GENERAL PROVISION

Section 401. The Committee has included a provision related
to the Denali Commission.

TITLE V

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The following list of general provisions are recommended by
the Committee.
Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds
provided in this bill from being used to influence
congressional action.
Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority
under this act.
Section 503. The provision relates to conferences by any
agency funded in the bill.

Program, Project, and Activity

In fiscal year 2014, for purposes of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177),
as amended, the following information provides the definition
of the term ``program, project or activity'' for departments
and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriation bill. The term ``program, project or
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items identified in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill, 2014 and the report accompanying the bill.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2014 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 to all items specified in
the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations in support of the fiscal year 2014 budget
estimates as modified by congressional action.

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

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not
covered under this rule, but reports this information in the
spirit of full disclosure.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2014:
Corps of Engineers.--Individual studies and projects
proposed for appropriations within this bill are specifically
authorized by law. The appropriation accounts where the funding
for the studies and projects are recommended are not considered
to be authorized as there is no originating act providing for
these appropriation accounts.
Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply
Activities:
Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal,
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
Health, Safety and Security;
Non-Defense Environmental Management;
Office of Science;
Department of Administration;
National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons
Activities; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors;
Office of the Administrator;
Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration
Completion;
Other Defense Activities;
Defense Nuclear Waste Fund;
Office of Security and Performance Assurance;
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern,
Southwestern, Western Area; and
Energy Information Administration.

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

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 27, 2013,
the Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill (S.
1245) making appropriations for energy and water development
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2014, and for other purposes, provided, that the bill be
subject to amendment and that the bill be consistent with its
spending allocations, by a recorded vote of 24-6, a quorum
being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairwoman Mikulski Mr. Shelby
Mr. Leahy Mr. McConnell
Mr. Harkin Mr. Coats
Mrs. Murray Mr. Blunt
Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Johanns
Mr. Durbin Mr. Boozman
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Udall
Mrs. Shaheen
Mr. Merkley
Mr. Begich
Mr. Coons
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Kirk
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven

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

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

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 84--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

SUBCHAPTER II--ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT

Sec. 7135. Energy Information Administration.

(a) Establishment; appointment of Administrator; compensation;
qualifications; duties

* * * * * * *

(i) Manufacturers energy consumption survey

(1) The Administrator shall conduct and publish the results
of a survey of energy consumption in the manufacturing
industries in the United States at least [once every two years]
once every four years and in a manner designed to protect the
confidentiality of individual responses. In conducting the
survey, the Administrator shall collect information,
including--

* * * * * * *

(k) Survey procedure

* * * * * * *

(1) conduct surveys of residential and commercial energy
use at least [once every 3 years] once every four years, and
make such information available to the public;

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 109B--SECURE WATER

Sec. 10361. Findings

* * * * * * *

Sec. 10364. Water management improvement

(a) Authorization of grants and cooperative agreements

* * * * * * *

(e) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section [$200,000,000] 250,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
------

TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS

CHAPTER 40--RECLAMATION STATES

SUBCHAPTER I--DROUGHT PROGRAM

Sec. 2214. Applicable period of drought program

(a) In general

* * * * * * *

The authorities established under this subchapter shall
terminate on September 30, [2012] 2017.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER III--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 2241. Authorization of appropriations

Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title
(relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam,
California), there is authorized to be appropriated not more
than [$90,000,000] $100,000,000 in total for the period of
fiscal years 2006 through [2012] 2017.
------

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1988, PUBLIC LAW 100-676

SEC. 3. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) Authorization of Construction.-- * * *

* * * * * * *

(1) Lower mission creek, santa barbara,
california.--* * *

* * * * * * *

(6) Lower ohio river, illinois and kentucky.--The
project for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks and
Dams 52 and 53, Illinois and Kentucky: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated August 20, 1986, at a total
cost of [$775,000,000] $2,918,000,000, with a first
Federal cost of [$775,000,000] $2,918,000,000, and with
the costs of construction of the project to be paid
one-half from amounts appropriated from the general
fund of the Treasury and one-half from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
------

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1992, PUBLIC LAW 102-575

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR THE COLORADO RIVER
STORAGE PROJECT.

(a) Increase in CRSP Authorization.-- * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) Secretarial Responsibility.--The Secretary is
responsible for carrying out the responsibilities as
specifically identified in this title and the Act of April 11,
1956 (Chapter 203; 70 Stat. 110 et seq.), popularly known as
the Colorado River Storage Project Act, relating to the
Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project including oversight
for all phases of the Bonneville Unit, the administration of
all prior and future contracts, operation and maintenance of
previously constructed facilities [and may not delegate such
responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation except through
the pilot management program hereby authorized. The pilot
management program will exist for a period not to exceed 5
years and shall provide a mechanism for the Secretary and the
District to create a mutually acceptable organization within
the Bureau of Reclamation to assist the Secretary in his
responsibilities for the long-term management of the Bonneville
Unit. Such pilot management program may be extended
indefinitely by mutual agreement between the Secretary and the
District. The District at its sole option may use the technical
services of the Bureau of Reclamation for engineering and
construction work on any project features. These provisions
shall not affect the responsibilities of the Bureau of
Reclamation and Western Area Power Administration regarding all
matters relating to all Colorado River Storage Project power
functions, including all matter affecting the use of power
revenues, power rates and ratemaking].
------

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1992, PUBLIC LAW 102-580

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

* * * * * * *

(1) Southeast alaska harbors of refuge, alaska.-- *
* *

* * * * * * *

(8) Kissimmee river restoration, florida.--The
project for the ecosystem restoration of the Kissimmee
River, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
March 17, 1992, [at a total cost of $426,885,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $139,943,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $286,942,000. The
Secretary is further authorized to construct] and the
Kissimmee River headwaters revitalization project in
accordance with the report prepared under section 1135
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4251-4252) for such headwaters project and any
modifications as are recommended by the Secretary based
on the benefits derived for the environmental
restoration of the Kissimmee River basin[, at a total
cost of $92,210,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$46,105,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$46,105,000.]. The total cost of the ecosystem
restoration and headwaters revitalization projects is
$519,095,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$186,048,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$333,047,000. The Secretary shall take such action as
may be necessary to ensure that implementation of the
project to restore the Kissimmee River will maintain
the same level of flood protection as is provided by
the current flood control project.
------

WATER DESALINATION ACT, 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-298

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Section 3.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out section 3 of this Act $5,000,000 per year for fiscal
years 1997 through [2013] 2018. Of these amounts, up to
$1,000,000 in each fiscal year may be awarded to institutions
of higher education, including United States-Mexico binational
research foundations and interuniversity research programs
established by the two countries, for research grants without
any cost-sharing requirement.
(b) Section 4.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out section 4 of this Act $3,000,000 for each of fiscal
years [2012 through 2013] 2014 through 2018.
------

WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ACT, 2005,
PUBLIC LAW 108-361

TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--

* * * * * * *

(e) New and Expanded Authorizations for Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The heads of the Federal agencies
described in this subsection are authorized to carry
out the activities described in subsection (f) during
each of fiscal years 2005 through [2014] 2018, in
coordination with the Governor.

* * * * * * *

(f) Description of Activities Under New and Expanded
Authorizations.--
(1) Conveyance.-- * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Levee stability.--
(A) In general.-- * * *
(B) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army
shall submit to the appropriate authorizing and
appropriating committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report that describes the levee
stability reconstruction projects and priorities that
will be carried out under this title during each of
fiscal years 2005 through [2014] 2018.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.

(a) In General.--The Federal share of the cost of
implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for fiscal years 2005
through [2014] 2018 in the aggregate, as set forth in the
Record of Decision, shall not exceed 33.3 percent.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
and the heads of the Federal agencies to pay the Federal share
of the cost of carrying out the new and expanded authorities
described in subsections (e) and (f) of section 103
$389,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through [2014]
2018, to remain available until expended.
------

FORT PECK RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT, 2000, PUBLIC LAW 106-382

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System.--There are
authorized to be appropriated--
(1) to the Bureau of Reclamation through fiscal
year [2015] 2020, $124,000,000 for the planning,
design, and construction of the Assiniboine and Sioux
Rural Water System; and

* * * * * * *

(b) Dry Prairie Rural Water System.--There is authorized to
be appropriated, through fiscal year [2015] 2020, $51,000,000
for the planning, design, and construction of the Dry Prairie
Rural Water System.
------

REVISED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2007, PUBLIC LAW 110-5

``DIVISION B--CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2007

``TITLE II--ELIMINATION OF EARMARKS, ADJUSTMENTS IN FUNDING, AND OTHER
PROVISIONS

``CHAPTER 3--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

``Sec. 20320. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

``(c) The Secretary of Energy shall enter into an
arrangement with an independent auditor for annual evaluations
of the program under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. In addition to the independent audit, the Comptroller
General shall conduct [an annual review] a review every three
years of the Department's execution of the program under title
XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The results of the
independent audit and the Comptroller General's review shall be
provided directly to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
------

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2007, PUBLIC LAW 110-114

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following
projects for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports
designated in this section:
(1) Haines, alaska.-- * * *

* * * * * * *

(17) Miami harbor, miami-dade county, florida.--
(A) In general.--The project for
navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County,
Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
April 25, 2005, at a total cost of
[$125,270,000] $152,510,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of [$75,140,000] $92,007,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of [$50,130,000]
$60,503,000.
------

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT, 2007, PUBLIC LAW 110-140

TITLE VIII--IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF ENERGY POLICY

Subtitle A--Management Improvements

[SEC. 804. COORDINATION OF PLANNED REFINERY OUTAGES.

[(a) Definitions.--In this section:
[(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator''
means the Administrator of the Energy Information
Administration.
[(2) Planned refinery outage.--
[(A) In general.--The term ``planned
refinery outage'' means a removal, scheduled
before the date on which the removal occurs, of
a refinery, or any unit of a refinery, from
service for maintenance, repair, or
modification.
[(B) Exclusion.--The term ``planned
refinery outage'' does not include any
necessary and unplanned removal of a refinery,
or any unit of a refinery, from service as a
result of a component failure, safety hazard,
emergency, or action reasonably anticipated to
be necessary to prevent such events.
[(3) Refined petroleum product.--The term ``refined
petroleum product'' means any gasoline, diesel fuel,
fuel oil, lubricating oil, liquid petroleum gas, or
other petroleum distillate that is produced through the
refining or processing of crude oil or an oil derived
from tar sands, shale, or coal.
[(4) Refinery.--The term ``refinery'' means a
facility used in the production of a refined petroleum
product through distillation, cracking, or any other
process.
[(b) Review and Analysis of Available Information.--The
Administrator shall, on an ongoing basis--
[(1) review information on refinery outages that is
available from commercial reporting services;
[(2) analyze that information to determine whether
the scheduling of a refinery outage may nationally or
regionally substantially affect the price or supply of
any refined petroleum product by--
[(A) decreasing the production of the
refined petroleum product; and
[(B) causing or contributing to a retail or
wholesale supply shortage or disruption;
[(3) not less frequently than twice each year,
submit to the Secretary a report describing the results
of the review and analysis under paragraphs (1) and
(2); and
[(4) specifically alert the Secretary of any
refinery outage that the Administrator determines may
nationally or regionally substantially affect the price
or supply of a refined petroleum product.
[(c) Action by Secretary.--On a determination by the
Secretary, based on a report or alert under paragraph (3) or
(4) of subsection (b), that a refinery outage may affect the
price or supply of a refined petroleum product, the Secretary
shall make available to refinery operators information on
planned refinery outages to encourage reductions of the
quantity of refinery capacity that is out of service at any
time.
[(d) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall alter any
existing legal obligation or responsibility of a refinery
operator, or create any legal right of action, nor shall this
section authorize the Secretary--
[(1) to prohibit a refinery operator from
conducting a planned refinery outage; or
[(2) to require a refinery operator to continue to
operate a refinery.]
------

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

TITLE X--WATER SETTLEMENTS

Subtitle A--San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement

PART I--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ACT

SEC. 10009. APPROPRIATIONS; SETTLEMENT FUND.

(a) Implementation Costs.--

* * * * * * *

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

SMALL BUSINESS JOBS ACT, 2010, PUBLIC LAW 111-240

TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESSES

Subtitle C--Small Business Contracting

PART III--ACQUISITION PROCESS

SEC. 1335. REPEAL OF SMALL BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Business Opportunity Development
Reform Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-656) is amended by striking
title VII (15 U.S.C. 644 note).
(b) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendment made
by this section--
(1) shall take effect on the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(2) * * *
(3) First tier subcontracts that are awarded by
Management and Operating contractors sponsored by the
Department of Energy to small business concerns, small
businesses concerns owned and controlled by service
disabled veterans, qualified HUBZone small business
concerns, small business concerns owned and controlled
by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,
and small business concerns owned and controlled by
women, shall be considered toward the annually
established agency and Governmentwide goals for
procurement contracts awarded.

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
guidance\1\ bill guidance bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee guidance
to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
for 2014: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Mandatory.............................................. NA ........... NA ...........
Discretionary.......................................... 34,773 34,773 NA \2\39,996
Security........................................... 18,012 18,012 NA NA
Nonsecurity........................................ 16,761 16,761 NA NA
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2014................................................... ............ ........... ........... \3\20,504
2015................................................... ............ ........... ........... 9,684
2016................................................... ............ ........... ........... 3,111
2017................................................... ............ ........... ........... 683
2018 and future years.................................. ............ ........... ........... 652
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 83 NA 18
2014......................................................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2014.
\2\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\3\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2014
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2013 Budget estimate Committee ---------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2013
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

Investigations..................................................... 124,750 90,000 120,000 -4,750 +30,000
Supplemental (Public Law 113-2) (emergency).................... 50,000 ............... ............... -50,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 174,750 90,000 120,000 -54,750 +30,000

Construction....................................................... 1,670,652 1,350,000 1,542,000 -128,652 +192,000
Supplemental (Public Law 113-2)................................ 3,461,000 ............... ............... -3,461,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 5,131,652 1,350,000 1,542,000 -3,589,652 +192,000

Mississippi River and Tributaries.................................. 251,496 279,000 300,000 +48,504 +21,000
Operations and Maintenance......................................... 2,407,176 2,588,000 2,700,000 +292,824 +112,000
Supplemental (Public Law 113-2) (emergency).................... 821,000 ............... ............... -821,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 3,228,176 2,588,000 2,700,000 -528,176 +112,000

Regulatory Program................................................. 192,614 200,000 200,000 +7,386 ...............
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP]........... 108,782 104,000 195,000 +86,218 +91,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.............................. 26,946 28,000 28,000 +1,054 ...............
Supplemental (Public Law 113-2) (emergency).................... 1,008,000 ............... ............... -1,008,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 1,034,946 28,000 28,000 -1,006,946 ...............

Expenses........................................................... 184,630 182,000 182,000 -2,630 ...............
Supplemental (Public Law 113-2) (emergency).................... 10,000 ............... ............... -10,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 194,630 182,000 182,000 -12,630 ...............

Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............ 4,992 5,000 5,000 +8 ...............
Rescission......................................................... ............... -100,000 ............... ............... +100,000
====================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil................. 10,322,038 4,726,000 5,272,000 -5,050,038 +546,000
Appropriations........................................... (8,433,038) (4,826,000) (5,272,000) (-3,161,038) (+446,000)
Emergency appropriations................................. (1,889,000) ............... ............... (-1,889,000) ...............
Rescissions.............................................. ............... (-100,000) ............... ............... (+100,000)
====================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project Completion Account

Central Utah Project construction.................................. 18,463 ............... ............... -18,463 ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation......... 1,198 ............... ............... -1,198 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 19,661 ............... ............... -19,661 ...............

Program oversight and administration............................... 1,297 ............... ............... -1,297 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Central Utah project completion account............... 20,958 ............... ............... -20,958 ...............
====================================================================================
Bureau of Reclamation

Water and Related Resources........................................ 893,210 791,135 945,796 +52,586 +154,661
Central Valley Project restoration fund............................ 53,041 53,288 53,288 +247 ...............
California Bay-Delta restoration................................... 39,572 37,000 37,000 -2,572 ...............
Policy and administration.......................................... 59,880 60,000 60,000 +120 ...............
Indian water rights settlements.................................... ............... 78,661 ............... ............... -78,661
San Joaquin restoration fund....................................... ............... 26,000 ............... ............... -26,000
Central Utah Project completion.................................... ............... 3,500 3,500 +3,500 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of Reclamation................................. 1,045,703 1,049,584 1,099,584 +53,881 +50,000
====================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of the Interior.................. 1,066,661 1,049,584 1,099,584 +32,923 +50,000
====================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Programs

Energy efficiency and renewable energy............................. 1,810,463 2,775,700 2,280,985 +470,522 -494,715
Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................ 134,231 154,015 134,015 -216 -20,000
Defense function............................................... 4,988 15,000 15,000 +10,012 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 139,219 169,015 149,015 +9,796 -20,000

Nuclear energy..................................................... 757,482 635,460 635,460 -122,022 ...............
Defense function............................................... ............... 100,000 100,000 +100,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 757,482 735,460 735,460 -22,022 ...............

Fossil Energy Research and Development............................. 532,932 420,575 420,575 -112,357 ...............
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves............................. 14,879 20,000 20,000 +5,121 ...............
Strategic Petroleum Reserve........................................ 192,319 189,400 189,400 -2,919 ...............
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve................................. 10,099 8,000 8,000 -2,099 ...............
Rescission..................................................... -6,000 ............... ............... +6,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 4,099 8,000 8,000 +3,901 ...............

Energy Information Administration.................................. 104,790 117,000 117,000 +12,210 ...............
Non-defense environmental cleanup.................................. 235,250 212,956 232,956 -2,294 +20,000
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund........ 471,984 554,823 554,823 +82,839 ...............
Science............................................................ 4,866,248 5,152,752 5,152,752 +286,504 ...............
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy........................... 264,470 379,000 379,000 +114,530 ...............
Race to the Top for Energy Efficiency and Grid Modernization....... ............... 200,000 ............... ............... -200,000
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program.............. 38,000 48,000 42,000 +4,000 -6,000
Offsetting collection.......................................... -38,000 -22,000 -22,000 +16,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... ............... 26,000 20,000 +20,000 -6,000

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program........... 5,988 6,000 6,000 +12 ...............
Departmental administration........................................ 237,370 226,580 234,637 -2,733 +8,057
Miscellaneous revenues......................................... -111,623 -108,188 -108,188 +3,435 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation............................................ 125,747 118,392 126,449 +702 +8,057

Office of the Inspector General.................................... 41,916 42,120 42,120 +204 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Energy programs....................................... 9,567,786 11,127,193 10,434,535 +866,749 -692,658
====================================================================================
Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security Administration

Weapons activities................................................. 7,574,916 7,868,409 7,868,409 +293,493 ...............
Defense nuclear nonproliferation................................... 2,433,524 2,140,142 2,180,142 -253,382 +40,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 2,433,524 2,140,142 2,180,142 -253,382 +40,000

Naval reactors..................................................... 1,079,654 1,246,134 1,312,134 +232,480 +66,000
Office of the Administrator........................................ 409,869 397,784 397,784 -12,085 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Nuclear Security Administration.............. 11,497,963 11,652,469 11,758,469 +260,506 +106,000
====================================================================================
Environmental and Other Defense Activities

Defense environmental cleanup...................................... 5,012,954 4,853,909 5,146,536 +133,582 +292,627
Defense environmental cleanup (legislative proposal)........... ............... 463,000 ............... ............... -463,000
Other Defense activities........................................... 821,717 749,080 762,080 -59,637 +13,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Environmental and Other Defense Activities............ 5,834,671 6,065,989 5,908,616 +73,945 -157,373
====================================================================================
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...................... 17,332,634 17,718,458 17,667,085 +334,451 -51,373
====================================================================================
Power Marketing Administrations\1\

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration....... 8,428 7,750 7,750 -678 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -8,428 -7,750 -7,750 +678 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration....... 44,986 45,456 45,456 +470 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -33,118 -33,564 -33,564 -446 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 11,868 11,892 11,892 +24 ...............

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western 290,529 299,919 299,919 +9,390 ...............
Area Power Administration.........................................
Offsetting collections......................................... -156,609 -203,989 -203,989 -47,380 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 133,920 95,930 95,930 -37,990 ...............

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund.................. 4,169 5,331 5,331 +1,162 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -3,949 -4,911 -4,911 -962 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 220 420 420 +200 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing Administrations....................... 146,008 108,242 108,242 -37,766 ...............

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Salaries and expenses.............................................. 304,000 304,600 304,600 +600 ...............
Revenues applied................................................... -304,000 -304,600 -304,600 -600 ...............
====================================================================================
Total, title III, Department of Energy....................... 27,046,428 28,953,893 28,209,862 +1,163,434 -744,031
Appropriations........................................... (27,052,428) (28,953,893) (28,209,862) (+1,157,434) (-744,031)
Rescissions.............................................. (-6,000) ............... ............... (+6,000) ...............
====================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission.................................... 68,126 64,618 68,200 +74 +3,582
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................ 29,072 29,915 29,915 +843 ...............
Delta Regional Authority........................................... 11,654 11,319 12,000 +346 +681
Denali Commission.................................................. 10,658 7,396 10,000 -658 +2,604
Northern Border Regional Commission................................ 1,494 1,355 5,000 +3,506 +3,645
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission............................. 250 ............... ............... -250 ...............

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 1,025,186 1,043,937 1,043,937 +18,751 ...............
Revenues....................................................... -899,726 -920,721 -920,721 -20,995 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 125,460 123,216 123,216 -2,244 ...............

Office of Inspector General.................................... 10,838 11,105 11,105 +267 ...............
Revenues....................................................... -9,754 -9,994 -9,994 -240 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 1,084 1,111 1,111 +27 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................... 126,544 124,327 124,327 -2,217 ...............

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............................... 3,393 3,400 3,400 +7 ...............
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 998 1,000 1,000 +2 ...............
Transportation Projects...........................................
====================================================================================
Total, title IV, Independent agencies........................ 252,189 243,330 253,842 +1,653 +10,512
Appropriations........................................... (252,189) (243,330) (253,842) (+1,653) (+10,512)
====================================================================================
Grand total.................................................. 38,687,316 34,972,807 34,835,288 -3,852,028 -137,519
Appropriations........................................... (36,804,316) (35,072,807) (34,835,288) (-1,969,028) (-237,519)
Emergency appropriations................................. (1,889,000) ............... ............... (-1,889,000) ...............
Rescissions.............................................. (-6,000) (-100,000) ............... (+6,000) (+100,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting
collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase wheeling.