[House Report 113-135]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
} HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES {
1st Session } { 113-135
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2014
_______
July 2, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Frelinghuysen, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2609]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page Number
Bill Report
Introduction............................................... 00
5
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
Corps of Engineers--Civil.......................... 2
15
Investigations............................. 2
25
Construction............................... 3
30
Mississippi River and Tributaries.......... 4
38
Operation and Maintenance.................. 4
41
Regulatory Program......................... 6
65
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program................................ 6
66
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies...... 6
67
Expenses................................... 6
67
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works)..................... 7
68
Administrative Provision................... 7
68
General Provisions................................. 8
69
II. Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project............................... 14
70
Central Utah Project Completion Account.... 14
70
Bureau of Reclamation:
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Overview........... 00
71
Water and Related Resources................ 14
72
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.... 16
79
California Bay-Delta Restoration........... 16
79
Policy and Administration.................. 17
80
General Provisions......................... 18
81
III. Department of Energy:
Introduction....................................... 00
81
Committee Recommendations.......................... 00
81
Energy Programs:
Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and
Efficiency............................. 21
87
Nuclear Energy............................. 22
95
Fossil Energy Research and Development..... 23
98
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves..... 24
101
Strategic Petroleum Reserve................ 24
102
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve......... 24
102
Energy Information Administration.......... 25
103
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.......... 25
103
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund................... 25
104
Science.................................... 26
105
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.. 26
111
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program...................... 26
112
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
Loan Program........................... 27
113
Departmental Administration................ 28
114
Office of Inspector General................ 29
115
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities......................... 29
118
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........... 29
129
Naval Reactors............................. 30
135
Office of the Administrator................ 30
136
Environmental and Other Defense Activities......... 31
137
Defense Environmental Cleanup.............. 31
137
Other Defense Activities................... 31
142
Power Marketing Administrations:
Bonneville Power Administration............ 32
144
Southeastern Power Administration.......... 33
145
Southwestern Power Administration.......... 34
145
Western Area Power Administration.......... 35
146
Falcon and Amistad Operating and
Maintenance Fund....................... 37
148
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............... 38
148
Committee Recommendation........................... 00
149
General Provisions................................. 39
179
IV. Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.................... 48
179
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............ 49
180
Delta Regional Authority........................... 49
180
Denali Commission.................................. 49
181
Northern Border Regional Commission................ 50
181
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission............. 50
182
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................... 51
182
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............... 53
185
Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects........................ 53
185
Tennessee Valley Authority......................... 00
186
V. General Provisions
House of Representatives Report Requirements............... 00
188
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2014. The following table summarizes appropriations for
fiscal year 2013, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended
in the bill for fiscal year 2014. The appropriations for fiscal
year 2013 are defined as the amounts provided within Public Law
113-6 and excluding emergency funding, disaster relief
adjustments, the 251A sequester, and any other adjustments
imposed by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to
section 3004 of Public Law 113-6.
INTRODUCTION
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2014 totals $30,426,000,000, $2,857,000,000 less
than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2013 (defined as
the amount provided within Public Law 113-6 and excluding
emergency funding, disaster relief adjustments, the 251A
sequester, and any other adjustments imposed by the Office of
Management and Budget pursuant to section 3004 of Public Law
113-6) and $4,057,519,000 below the President's budget request.
Total security funding is $11,104,000,000, $397,000,000 less
than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2013 and
$548,469,000 below the budget request. Total non-security
funding is $19,322,000,000, $2,460,000,000 less than the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2013 and $3,509,050,000 below the
budget request.
Title I of the bill provides $4,876,000,000 for the Civil
Works programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
$104,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 (excluding funding provided
in Public Law 113-2, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,
2013) and $50,000,000 above the budget request. Total funding
for activities eligible for reimbursement from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund is $1,000,000,000, $110,000,000 above
the budget request.
Title II provides $964,757,000 for the Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $103,962,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and $84,827,000 below the budget request. The
Committee recommends $956,032,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation, $91,687,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $90,052,000
below the budget request for accounts traditionally within the
Bureau of Reclamation. The Committee recommends $8,725,000 for
the Central Utah Project, $12,275,000 below fiscal year 2013
and $5,225,000 above the budget request.
Title III provides $24,925,252,000 for the Department of
Energy, $2,118,175,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$4,028,641,000 below the budget request. Funding for the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which includes
nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation,
naval reactors, and the Office of the NNSA Administrator, is
$11,266,000,000, $235,644,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$386,469,000 below the budget request.
The Committee recommends $4,653,000,000 for the Office of
Science, $982,637,000 for renewable energy, energy reliability
and efficiency programs; $656,389,000 for nuclear energy
programs; $450,000,000 for fossil energy research and
development; and $50,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects
Agency--Energy.
Environmental management activities--non-defense
environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and
decommissioning, and defense environmental cleanup--are funded
at $5,489,000,000, $242,651,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$132,688,000 below the budget request.
Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided
at the requested levels.
Title IV provides $249,279,000 for several Independent
Agencies, $5,217,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $5,949,000
above the budget request. Net funding for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is $123,216,000, $4,298,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and the same as the budget request.
Title V includes a rescission of $519,000,000 of prior year
appropriations, $513,000,000 more than fiscal year 2013 and
$419,000,000 more than the budget request. The rescission
includes $200,000,000 from title I and $319,000,000 from title
III. Within title III, $157,000,000 is rescinded from Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $142,000,000 is rescinded from
Weapons Activities, and $20,000,000 is rescinded from Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation.
Overview of the Recommendation
The Committee recommendation makes clear the tradeoffs
forced by relying on cuts in discretionary spending to achieve
deficit reductions. In fiscal year 2013, sequestration cut the
activities funded in this bill by more than $2,100,000,000 with
the greatest percentage taken from the most critical area this
bill funds: our national security. Yet, beyond this percentage
difference between security and non-security activities,
sequestration was indifferent to the programs, projects, and
activities being cut. Compounding the problem, the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013 was not enacted
into law, so the funding levels were based on priorities at
least one year out of date.
The Committee recommendation clearly articulates priorities
for fiscal year 2014, differentiating among programs, projects,
and activities that are inherently federal responsibilities and
those that might be supported by the private sector or other
non-federal entities. Above all else, it supports the most
critical of inherently federal responsibilities: the national
defense and the maintenance of our nation's waterways. Strong
support is provided for basic science programs, which are
critical to our country's long-term prosperity, and which the
private sector is unlikely to assume. Activities to clean up
contamination from the Manhattan Project are also inherently
federal responsibilities and are required to fulfill agreements
with states, tribes, and other non-federal entities. In
contrast, applied energy research and development has the
greatest opportunity for support from the private sector and
the states.
The Committee does recognize that the federal government
can, and should, play a role in helping our private sector
compete. Many foreign companies enjoy heavy subsidies and other
protections from their governments. This assistance can give
those companies at least a short-term advantage in the global
marketplace. The recommendation continues applied research and
development for energy technologies by focusing the limited
available resources on programs that help keep the cost of
energy low and those that help the American private sector
quickly identify and pursue promising technologies.
National Defense Programs
As in previous years, the Committee considers the national
defense programs, run by the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), to be the Department of Energy's top
priority. Even within the limited resources available for
fiscal year 2014, the recommendation provides strong support
for the President's proposals to increase investments in the
NNSA's infrastructure through the following national defense
accounts: Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,
and Naval Reactors.
The Committee recognizes and supports the close working
relationship that the NNSA and the Department of Defense are
demonstrating. Properly executed, this unity of mission will
help the Department of Defense to better understand the costs
of its requirements and the NNSA to build upon Department of
Defense budgeting experience to provide more accurate estimates
of costs. The Committee is concerned that assumed within the
NNSA's budget are more than $300,000,000 in ``efficiencies''
that must be realized to allow the NNSA to attain its
objectives for fiscal year 2014, and that these
``efficiencies'' must be maintained in the future. The
Committee believes that all options must be considered to find
these ``efficiencies'' and includes bill language to reduce the
percentage of overhead at the weapons laboratories that may be
used for discretionary research and development. Implementation
of this reduction should free more than $100,000,000 to be
applied to the direct support of our nation's nuclear weapons.
The NNSA shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 180
days after enactment of this Act regarding its ``efficiencies''
for fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
The recommendation continues the Committee's strong support
for modernization of the nuclear stockpile and its supporting
infrastructure. At the same time, the Committee notes that the
full extent of the consequences of the NNSA's project
management problems, especially at the largest of the NNSA's
construction projects, is still coming to light. As the
Administration gains a more complete understanding of cost
increases and construction delays, it must take the lead to
determine whether a new long-term budget plan is needed to meet
the nation's strategic objectives.
The Committee notes that the Administration has proposed a
new structure for our nuclear stockpile, the so-called ``3+2
strategy'', to be implemented in the coming decades. This
proposal may be an attempt to accommodate the budgetary
environment facing our nation's strategic defense. While in
concept some of the claimed benefits, including lower overall
costs for maintaining the stockpile, are appealing, the
Administration has yet to fully analyze and estimate the costs
of the workforce implications, infrastructure needs, and
strategic risks of the proposed changes. This analysis and full
estimation of risks, benefits, and costs is critical for this
Committee to determine its support for the proposal. The
recommendation takes a balanced approach by funding work needed
to complete this analysis as well as ongoing work that will be
needed for our stockpile regardless of its outcome.
The recommendation largely supports the Administration's
budget request to prohibit the spread of fissile materials
overseas, although the Committee would have preferred to
allocate more to the core nonproliferation programs had funding
been available. While the United States government has made
great strides working with its global partners to limit the
potential spread of fissile materials, much more is left to be
done. The Committee notes that the United States and Russia
have not yet determined the next steps of its bilateral
nonproliferation relationship and understands that the outcome
of this discussion will have important implications for the
nonproliferation program in the coming years. The Committee
requests regular updates from the NNSA regarding the status of
these discussions.
Finally, the Committee strongly supports the strategic
protection afforded by our country's nuclear fleet, which is
supported through the Naval Reactors account. The
recommendation prioritizes strategic activities, such as the
Ohio-class ballistic submarine replacement reactor program,
while delaying infrastructure needs that, while also important,
can be slightly deferred with no strategic repercussions. The
Committee greatly appreciates the service of the members of our
country's armed forces and will continue to place the highest
priority on support for them and their work.
Supporting American Competitiveness
The agencies and programs funded by the recommendation are
critical engines for the prosperity of the nation. The Army
Corps of Engineers is responsible for keeping our federal
waterways open for business. The Corps also has been
instrumental in reducing the risk of flooding for much of this
country's food-producing lands. The Bureau of Reclamation
supplies reliable water to approximately ten percent of this
country's population and to much of its fertile agricultural
lands. The Department of Energy has been at the forefront of
developing intellectual property in energy sciences and other
disciplines, the commercialization of new ideas, and
improvements in energy supply and utilization. Working
together, these agencies underpin the country's economic
competitiveness and energy security.
As the agency responsible for our nation's federal
waterways, the Army Corps of Engineers maintains 926 ports and
25,000 miles of commercial channels serving 41 states. The
maintenance of these commercial waterways is directly tied to
the ability of this country to ship its manufactured and bulk
products, as well as to compete with the ports of neighboring
countries for the business of ships arriving from around the
world. These waterways handled foreign commerce valued at more
than $1,724,000,000,000 in 2012 alone. As a primary supporter
of America's waterway infrastructure, the Corps is ensuring
that the nation has the tools to maintain a competitive edge in
the global market. While the Committee must make hard choices
with limited resources, this recommendation makes key changes
to the budget request to ensure that the Corps has the
necessary tools to continue to support America's shipping
infrastructure.
The flood protection infrastructure that the Corps builds
or maintains reduces the risk of flooding to people,
businesses, and other public infrastructure investments. In
fact, Corps projects prevented damages of $149,600,000,000 in
2012 alone. Between 1928 and 2012, each inflation-adjusted
dollar invested in these projects prevented $7.89 in damages.
The properties and investments protected by the Corps
infrastructure would often be flooded without that
infrastructure, destroying homes, businesses, and many valuable
acres of cropland.
The Bureau of Reclamation's water infrastructure is a
critical component of the agricultural productivity of this
country. These facilities deliver water to one of every five
western farmers resulting in approximately 10 million acres of
irrigated land that produces 60 percent of the nation's
vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. Additionally,
these facilities deliver water to more than 31 million people
for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Without these dams
and water supply facilities, American agricultural producers in
the West would not be able to access reliable, safe water for
their families and their businesses and many municipal and
industrial users would face critical water shortages.
The Department of Energy supports essential research that
has helped keep America at the cutting edge of science and
technology innovation. Given the limited resources available
this year, the recommendation places a higher priority on
research that only the government is likely to do, research
that advances our basic scientific understanding, and research
that has commercialization possibilities only in the distant
future.
Research and development for technologies that are closer
to commercialization, and thus that the private sector has more
incentive to take up, receives less funding than in previous
years. However, the recommendation does continue a long-
standing commitment by the Committee to the type of research
that will improve American energy security and independence.
The recommendation for Fossil Energy; Nuclear Energy; and
Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency are
balanced to improve the efficiency and cleanliness of existing
forms of energy production, while providing support for longer-
term development of new and innovative forms of energy for this
nation's security and prosperity.
As noted in previous years, the Department has not been
successful at ensuring that intellectual property developed
with U.S. taxpayer funds benefits those same taxpayers. The
Department still has no coherent strategy to track and improve
domestic exploitation of Department-developed intellectual
property. Without such a strategy, U.S. manufacturing will too
frequently be forced to play ``catch-up'' with foreign
competitors benefitting from ideas formed here in the U.S. The
Committee strongly urges the Secretary to take more of a
leadership role in improving U.S. manufacturing and domestic
intellectual property retention and includes direction to this
effect in the ``Department of Energy'' section.
Project and Program Management
While the Department of Energy has made significant
progress in the last few years, until the Committee can have
confidence in the cost and schedule baselines upon which it
must form its budgetary decisions, project and program
management will continue to be a core concern. The Department
continues its two decade presence on the Government
Accountability Office's ``high-risk list'' for project
management, although it is a hopeful sign that the Department's
management of its smaller projects has been removed from the
list. Unfortunately, management of the largest projects remains
on the ``high-risk list'' and funding for these projects--
including the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Waste
Treatment Plant, and Uranium Processing Facility--to a large
extent drives the Department's budget request. Even though the
Committee has strongly supported nuclear weapons,
nonproliferation, and cleanup activities, as costs for these
construction projects grow and budgets remain constrained,
available non-construction program resources will likely fall.
The Department must get these projects onto a clear and
enforceable path.
The Committee remains concerned about the management of the
Department's research and development activities, although it
notes significant improvements from previous years. The
Department has taken steps to ensure that taxpayer funding is
only invested into programs with clear guidelines and
expectations, and the Committee expects that the nascent
reforms within the energy efficiency and renewable energy
activities will help foster a culture in which projects are
terminated when those expectations are not met.
The Committee recognizes the improvements made by most of
the Department to reduce ``mortgages'', funding in any fiscal
year promised to awards or agreements started in prior years.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (funded under Renewable
Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency in this
recommendation), once one of the greatest offenders, is now on
par with Nuclear Energy and Fossil Energy. Minimal mortgages
allow these offices to ensure that new resources in any fiscal
year are allocated to the highest value projects, rather than
to previous years' priorities. Program managers can actively
manage their portfolios, ensuring that well-performing awardees
are fully resourced without having to accommodate uncertainties
about future-years' budgets.
Unfortunately, the Office of Science has failed to follow
this trend. Most of its new multi-year awards continue to be
mortgaged against out-year funding. Most of these new awards
are small and should be fully funded. In fiscal year 2013, more
than 70 percent of Science's multi-year awards were valued at
less than $1,500,000. In a nearly $5,000,000,000 account, the
practice of carrying mortgages for smaller awards is avoidable
and should be terminated. The recommendation includes language
to do so.
The Committee's concerns regarding program and project
management are not limited to the Department of Energy. The
Corps of Engineers has suffered several significant failings in
recent years regarding its projects. The massive increase in
the cost of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project, which this
recommendation contains authorization language to accommodate,
is the most obvious example. Coupled with the failure of the
involved parties to solve the revenue challenge limiting
projects cost-shared with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
(IWTF), this cost increase means that the Trust Fund's limited
resources will be dedicated to making progress at the Olmsted
project for many years in the future, rather than addressing
the many other priorities awaiting funding.
Smaller projects have faced problems as well. In some
cases, the Administration has not requested authorization
increases in time for the Congress to accommodate them. This
lack of planning and management is unacceptable. The Corps is
directed to develop and maintain a database of all current
projects, spending-to-date against each authorization limit,
and a trigger date at which the Administration must notify the
Congress that an authorization increase is needed to maintain
progress on the project. Further direction regarding this topic
is included in the ``Corps of Engineers--Civil'' section.
The Committee also has been made aware of concerns
regarding the limited manner in which the Corps and the Bureau
of Reclamation use technology in their contracting processes.
Not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review
of implementation by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau
of Reclamation of the requirement regarding the use of
electronic submission in federal procurement in section 850 of
Public Law 105-85. The review shall include analysis of: 1) The
ability of the data collected through electronic submissions to
be used for broader reporting and data usage by each agency; 2)
potential benefits and obstacles to implementing fuller use of
electronic submissions, including cost savings, increased
security, reduction in errors, paperwork reduction, broader
bidder participation, competition, and the enhanced use of data
collection for management and timely reporting to Congress; and
3) available options and technologies for broader
implementation and the suitability of each option, by contract
type and size, for implementation. When analyzing options for
possible improvements, the Comptroller General should consider
the processes or systems used for construction-related
contracting by other federal and state agencies, including
departments of transportation.
Finally, the Committee notes that the Corps only recently
submitted its spending plan for fiscal year 2013, months after
it was required. The Administration's inability to submit a
spending plan for this critical agency is unacceptable. This
delay will be more disruptive to project implementation than
the sequestration cuts, especially since the post-sequester
funding levels of most of the project-based accounts will still
be higher than the fiscal year 2013 budget request.
On the other hand, the Committee notes and appreciates the
work of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Energy
to keep the Committee up-to-date with their plans for fiscal
year 2013. Sequestration has posed significant challenges for
all parties, and the Bureau and Department have tried hard to
proactively manage their resources with congressional input.
Committee Oversight Initiatives
The highest priority mission of any federal agency is to be
an effective steward of taxpayer dollars. Any waste, fraud, or
abuse of taxpayer dollars is unacceptable. The Committee uses
hearings, reviews by the Government Accountability Office, the
Committee on Appropriations' Surveys and Investigations staff,
and its annual appropriations Act, including the accompanying
report, to promote strong oversight of the agencies under its
jurisdiction, with an emphasis on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of
Energy.
The Committee requires detailed reporting from its agencies
when specific information is needed to inform appropriations
Acts and to fulfill oversight responsibilities. The Committee
is deeply concerned that agencies are failing to produce these
reports in a timely manner. These reports provide critical
information that the Committee must have to effectively oversee
taxpayer funds. Without them, the Committee must make
substantive decisions without the full input of the executive
branch.
The inability of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Department of Energy to provide accurate
and timely financial information to the Committee calls into
question the strategic planning functions of those agencies and
within the Administration's interagency process. The Committee
will continue to direct oversight and financial reports in an
effort to build a more open and transparent budgeting process.
The Committee expects that the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy will renew
their commitment to addressing and completing these
congressionally directed reports in a timely manner.
The Committee has determined the following reports are no
longer necessary to fulfill its oversight functions and is
hereby eliminating or otherwise modifying the original
reporting requirement:
Department of Energy.--Annual Report on Enforcement Actions
for Stripper Well and Exxon Funds, required by H.R. 100-498,
the Conference Report accompanying Public Law 100-202
(Eliminate).
Department of Energy.--Report on Marine and Hydrokinetic
Technologies, required by H.R. 111-278, the Conference Report
accompanying Public Law 111-85 (Eliminate).
Army Corps of Engineers.--Quarterly Report on Project
Execution, required by House Report 110-185 (Combine with
monthly reporting on emergency funding, except include non-
emergency funding each quarter only).
The recommendation continues the Committee's responsibility
to conduct in-depth oversight into all activities funded in
this bill. Each agency shall designate a specific point of
contact to track each report required in the bill and ensure
its timely production and delivery.
A summary of the major oversight efforts in the bill is
provided below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency/Account Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Corps of Engineers................ Report on credit for work by
non-Federal sponsors
Army Corps of Engineers................ Guidance on risk estimation in
cost estimating activites
Army Corps of Engineers................ Report on cost related measures
of aquatic ecosystem
restoration
Army Corps of Engineers................ Comprehensive estimate for
completing ongoing projects
Army Corps of Engineers................ Final spending plan for fiscal
year 2014
Army Corps of Engineers................ Guidance on ratings systems for
allocating additional funds
Army Corps of Engineers................ Plan for management of 902
limit project modifications
Army Corps of Engineers................ List of projects that may
exceed 902 limits
Army Corps of Engineers/Investigations. Guidance on flood risk in small
cities
Army Corps of Engineers/Construction... Guidance and report on
alternatives to dam safety
activites at Isabella Dam and
Reservoir project
Army Corps of Engineers/Construction... Report on actions to mitigate
threat of predatory birds on
endangered Salmon species in
the Columbia River
Army Corps of Engineers/Construction... Report on distribution of
Continuing Authorities Program
funds
Army Corps of Engineers/FUSRAP......... Guidance on investigation and
study at former Sylvania site
Army Corps of Engineers/Flood Control Guidance on tracking emergency
and Coastal Emergencies. related activities
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses....... Report on plan for allowing
firearms on Corps lands
Army Corps of Engineers/General Reprogramming requirements
Provisions.
Army Corps of Engineers/General Restriction on use of
Provisions. continuing contracts
Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of GAO Report on electronic
Reclamation. submission in contracting
Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Report on performance metrics
Reclamation.
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Report on water needs in
Resources. Kettleman City, California
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Report on compliance with
Resources. direction on buried metallic
water pipe
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Guidance on assembly and
Resources. analysis of data on pipeline
reliability
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Report on costs and benefits to
Resources. address quagga and zebra
mussels
Bureau of Reclamation/Policy and Guidance on new scope of
Administration. information for budget
justifications
Bureau of Reclamation/Policy and Report on five year
Administration. comprehensive spending plan
Bureau of Reclamation/General Reprogramming requirements
Provisions.
Department of Energy................... Guidance on proposal of budget
structure changes
Department of Energy................... Requirement for monthly
financial balances report
Department of Energy................... Report on Department's Program
Direction accounts
Department of Energy................... Report on historical funding of
DOE Centers
Department of Energy................... Guidance on inclusion of
centers in future budget
justifications
Department of Energy................... Report on intellectual property
protections
Department of Energy................... Report on educational funding
activities
Department of Energy................... Reprogramming requirements
Department of Energy/Renewable Energy, Report on programs supporting
Energy Reliability, and Efficiency thermal energy generation
(REERE).
Department of Energy/REERE............. Guidance on cost competetive
transmission components
Department of Energy/REERE............. Requirement for grid cyber
security testing capabilities
list
Department of Energy/REERE............. Report on strategic workforce
plan for OER program
Department of Energy/REERE............. Guidance on biomass activities
that use non-food sources.
Department of Energy/REERE............. Report on feasibility of dual-
fuel in Class 8 trucks
Department of Energy/REERE............. Guidance on Building America
program
Department of Energy/REERE............. Study to improve manufacturing
of consumer electronics
Department of Energy/REERE............. Guidance on engagement for
housing energy standards
Department of Energy/REERE............. Guidance on support for
geothermal technologies
Department of Energy/Nuclear........... Report on nuclear science and
engineering workforce
Department of Energy/Fossil............ Guidance on full-time
equivalent information in
budget justifications
Department of Energy/Fossil............ Report on feasibility of
recovering rare earth elements
Department of Energy/Fossil............ Direction on interagency
research plan regarding
methane hydrates
Department of Energy/Non-Defense Plan for cleanup of SEFOR at
Cleanup. University of Arkansas
Department of Energy/Science........... Plan on Minority Serving
Institutions Partnerships
Department of Energy/Science........... Report on free-electron laser
array light source project
Department of Energy/Science........... Guidance for ten-year plan for
Fusion Energy Sciences.
Department of Energy/Science........... Guidance on budget materials
and project baseline for ITER
Department of Energy/Science........... Report on Office of Science
Graduate Fellowship program
Department of Energy/ARPA-E............ Report on need for program
direction
Department of Energy/Title 17.......... Prohibition on subordinating
U.S. interests in loan
guarantees
Department of Energy/Title 17.......... Report on status of loan
guarantee applications
Department of Energy/ATVM.............. Plan on use of remaining AVTM
funds
Department of Energy/DA................ Report on costs and benefits of
idle reduction in DOE vehicle
fleet
Department of Energy/NNSA.............. Comprehensive review of
security management
Department of Energy/NNSA.............. Limitation on NNSA laboratory
directed research and
development
Department of Energy/NNSA.............. Guidance on reform of
contractor pension and other
benefits
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Guidance on new stockpile
concept development
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Investigation and report on
certification of new LEP
concepts
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Guidance on supporting
stockpile production
operations
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Guidance on requests for budget
structure changes
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Guidance on budgeting for new
stockpile development
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Guidance on budgeting for
National Ignition Facility
operations
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Establishment of new reporting
controls for stockpile work
and infrastructure
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Requirement for project plans
for infrastructure and
construction
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Prohibition on starting
construction of Uranium
Processing Facility
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Guidance on Minority Serving
Institutions Partnerships
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Guidance on lead program office
Nonproliferation. for nuclear forensics
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Report on outcome of four-year
Nonproliferation. goal to secure nuclear
materials
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Review of DNN performance
Nonproliferation. measures
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Prohibition of continued study
Nonproliferation. of MOX alternatives
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Report on NNSA construction
Nonproliferation. Other Project Costs
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Establishment of new reporting
Nonproliferation. controls for GTRI
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Program review of Domestic
Nonproliferation. Radiological Protection and
Removal
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors.... Guidance on alternatives for
spent fuel handling
infrastructure
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors.... Report on ten year site plan
Department of Energy/Defense Independent study of risks of
Environmental Cleanup. outstanding environmental
cleanup
Department of Energy/Defense Establishment of reporting
Environmental Cleanup. controls for Waste Treatment
Plant
Department of Energy/Defense Guidance on semi-annual reports
Environmental Cleanup. for Waste Treatment Plant
Department of Energy/Defense Prohibition on restarting
Environmental Cleanup. construction of Pretreament
Plant
Department of Energy/Other Defense Report on HSS annual oversight
Activities. activities
Department of Energy/Other Defense Guidance on development of
Activities. graded security posture
Department of Energy/Bonneville Power.. Report on any direction from
the Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy/Southeastern Power Report on any direction from
Admin. the Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy/Southwestern Power Report on any direction from
Admin. the Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy/Western Area Power Report on any direction from
Admin. the Secretary of Energy
Department of Energy................... Prohibit funds for activities
not approved by Congress
Department of Energy................... Prohibit funds for high hazard
nuclear facilities
construction unless cost
estimates have been developed
Department of Energy................... Prohibit implementation of
section 407, division A, ARRA
2009
Department of Energy................... Prohibit certain multi year
funding agreements in Office
of Science
Department of Energy................... Report on plan for tritium and
enriched uranium
Department of Energy................... Requirement for analysis of
alternatives and certification
for warhead refurbishment
programs
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Requirement for joint
management of salaries and
expenses
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Prohibition on terminiating
programs without Congressional
approval
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Requirement for notification of
use of emergency functions
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Guidance on funding for Yucca
Mountain license application
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Semi-annual report on licensing
and regulatory activities
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Report on input and regulatory
analysis of 10 CFR Part 50 or
52
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Report on National Framework
recommendations
Tennessee Valley Authority............. Guidance on audit and
inspection reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
INTRODUCTION
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act funds
the Civil Works missions of the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps). This program is responsible for activities in support
of coastal and inland navigation, flood and coastal storm
damage reduction, environmental protection and restoration,
hydropower, recreation, water supply, and disaster preparedness
and response. The Corps also performs regulatory oversight of
navigable waters. Approximately 23,000 civilians and almost 300
military personnel located in eight Division offices and 38
District offices work to carry out the Civil Works program.
FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Civil Works
program of the Corps of Engineers is a program level of
$4,826,000,000, a decrease of $154,000,000 from fiscal year
2013. As in previous years, the largest dollar reduction is in
the Construction account ($331,000,000), although the
Investigations account sees the largest percentage reduction
(28 percent) from fiscal year 2013. The Mississippi River and
Tributaries and Operation and Maintenance accounts are proposed
to increase by 11 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The
budget request also includes a rescission of $100,000,000 of
prior-year appropriations.
The Committee acknowledges that, for the second year in a
row, the Administration's request shows an increased focus on
navigation improvements over the previous budget request. For
the second year in a row, however, this focus seems to come at
the expense of investments in flood and storm damage reduction
efforts. Investments in both of these mission areas not only
provide short-term economic benefits by directly creating jobs,
but also provide the foundation necessary for long-term
economic growth. Further, in the case of flood and storm damage
reduction, investment can prevent or reduce the costs of
recovery from flood events. Rather than accepting the approach
proposed in the budget request, the Committee has allocated
funds to enhance the focus on navigation improvements while
mitigating the cuts to flood and storm damage reduction efforts
in the budget request.
Budget Criteria.--According to the Administration, the
Corps budget request is a performance-based budget developed
using objective performance criteria. Within the Investigations
account, funding was ostensibly allocated based on continuing
the ``highest performing studies and design,'' but the
Committee has been unable to ascertain what objective measures
qualify a study as high-performing.
Construction funds were allocated based on a mix of
factors, including severity of dam safety problems, benefit-to-
cost ratio, risk-to-life index, Endangered Species Act
compliance, and restoration of a nationally- or regionally-
significant aquatic ecosystem. Operation and Maintenance funds
were allocated based on a mix of factors, including tonnage
movements, risk and consequences assessment, and visitation at
recreation sites. It is entirely unclear, though, how any of
these factors were ranked or weighted during development of the
budget.
Most concerning is the fact that these metrics were not
applied consistently to all previously-funded projects. In
other words, numerous ongoing studies and projects, previously
funded by congressional direction, were not even eligible to
compete for inclusion in the President's budget, with the only
explanation the vague characterization of not being consistent
with Administration policy. While this exclusion is not new
this year, or even with this Administration, it nevertheless
casts doubt on the true objectivity of the budget development
process.
The Committee notes that the budget again includes a
Construction account criterion that makes any coastal
navigation project eligible for funding if the project would
support jobs or economic activity. The budget request claims
this is consistent with guidance provided in the fiscal year
2012 Act. On the contrary, the clear intent of the fiscal year
2012 Act guidance was for the Corps to consider, as one of many
factors, the amount of job growth or economic activity to be
supported by a project when determining allocation of the
additional funds provided. The intent was not to make every
project that supports any amount of jobs or economic activity
eligible for funding regardless of other criteria.
Project Completions and Initiations.--The budget request
for the Investigations account includes funding to complete a
total of 21 studies. Funding is requested for 10 new studies.
The budget request for the Construction account includes
funding to complete six projects and to initiate four new
projects. Funding for one new program in the Operation and
Maintenance account also is requested.
DEEP-DRAFT NAVIGATION
More than 95 percent of the nation's overseas trade by
weight and more than 75 percent by value moves through the
nation's ports. Significant changes are occurring in the
world's shipping fleets, and the scheduled opening of an
expanded Panama Canal in 2015 has prompted a move towards
larger ships requiring deeper drafts. The United States must
address these evolving infrastructure needs if the nation is to
remain competitive in international markets and to continue
advancing economic development and job creation domestically.
Investigations and construction of port projects, including
the deepening of existing projects, are cost-shared between the
federal government and non-federal sponsors, often local or
regional port authorities. The operation and maintenance of
these projects are federal responsibilities and are funded as
reimbursements from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF),
which is supported by a tax on the value of imported and
domestic cargo. Expenditures from the trust fund are subject to
annual appropriations. The balance in the HMTF by the beginning
of fiscal year 2015 is estimated to be nearly $9,000,000,000.
Congress historically has appropriated more funding for
HMTF-related activities each year than is included in that
year's budget request. For fiscal year 2014, the Committee
provides a total of $1,000,000,000 for HMTF-related activities,
an increase of $110,000,000 above the budget request. While not
equal to total anticipated annual receipts, this increase is
substantial and should allow the Corps to make progress on the
backlog of dredging needs.
INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM
The inland waterways system consists of approximately
12,000 miles of commercially navigable channels and 239 lock
chambers to support the movement of goods to and from 38
states. The inland waterways system carries more than
600,000,000 tons of cargo, valued at nearly $70,000,000,000,
each year. This freight includes a significant portion of the
nation's grain exports, domestic petroleum and petroleum
products, and coal used in electricity generation. Much of the
physical infrastructure of the system is aging, however, and in
need of improvements. For example, commercial navigation locks
typically have a design life of 50 years, yet nearly 60 percent
of these locks in the United States are more than 60 years old.
Capital improvements to the inland waterways system are
funded 50 percent from the General Treasury and 50 percent from
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), which is supported by a
$0.20 per gallon tax on barge fuel. Operation and maintenance
costs are funded 100 percent from the General Treasury.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request noted the depletion of
accumulated balances in the IWTF. Since that time, at least
three proposals have been developed to address this situation,
but none has gained support from a majority of interested
parties within the Administration, the Congress, and industry.
The Committee continues to support the only prudent
budgetary option under these circumstances--that of limiting
investment to no more than annual revenue. This decision is not
without cost or risk, however. As each fiscal year passes with
no legislative changes to provide additional funding, costs go
up for projects delayed or deferred, and the chance of one or
more significant failures of aging infrastructure increases.
The Committee is concerned that the chance of significant
failure(s) is quickly becoming a question of when, not if. The
Committee continues to encourage the Administration to work
with industry and the appropriate committees of the Congress to
develop an equitable solution to this problem as soon as
possible.
Most of the construction funds available for work on the
inland waterways system remain concentrated to the Olmsted
Locks and Dam project in the budget request and the Committee
recommendation. The Committee provides additional funding,
however, that the Corps may use for high priority operation and
maintenance work to avoid catastrophic failure on the inland
waterways system while a long-term solution to the construction
problem is developed.
HURRICANE SANDY
On October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall in the
Northeastern United States. While still off the coast, the
storm became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, as
measured by diameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles. Although
damages occurred in areas as far south as Florida, as far north
as New England, and as far west as the Great Lakes, the most
severe damages occurred along the coasts of New Jersey, New
York, and Connecticut. The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act
of 2013 (P.L. 113-2) provided the Corps of Engineers with
funding in the amount of $5,350,000,000 to respond to the
storm, repair damages to Corps projects, and to make
improvements that will reduce future flood risks.
The Committee is pleased to note that the Corps has begun
work on repairing damages to existing projects, including
restoring certain projects to design level. The Committee is
concerned, however, with the Administration's tardiness in
submitting two required interim reports and with the lack of
detail expressed in those reports. The Act made clear that the
Corps was to pursue near-term steps to reduce flood risks and
development of a long-term comprehensive plan simultaneously.
The Corps currently has a number of authorized projects that
will provide significant protection against future storms once
construction is completed. Many of these projects involve
``soft infrastructure'' such as sand placement, and, therefore,
will not unduly constrain long-term options. The Committee
expects the Corps to proceed with work on both near-term and
long-term goals expeditiously.
CREDIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BY NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS
The Committee has heard concerns from a number of
communities regarding the existing policy on credits for work
performed by non-federal sponsors, particularly as it relates
to flood control projects. Specifically, these communities are
concerned that ER 1165-2-208, issued in February 2012,
restricts credit for construction to work performed only after
release of the draft feasibility report. While this milestone
is an improvement from an earlier version of the policy, it
still could act as a disincentive for non-federal interests to
construct urgently needed flood control projects.
The Committee believes that the release of a draft
feasibility report may be a reasonable milestone for many
situations, but that there may be situations in which a more
flexible policy on crediting is appropriate. Such situations
may include when the proposed construction is an improvement or
modification to an existing federally authorized levee system
or when the proposed construction will significantly follow an
existing levee alignment, especially in reaches where the
existing levee alignment protects existing infrastructure.
The Secretary is directed to review existing policy to
determine if changes could be made to base credit decisions on
a set of project conditions rather than a one-size-fits-all
point in time. The Secretary shall report the results of this
review to the Committee not later than 60 days after enactment
of this Act. If a decision is made to update ER 1165-2-208, the
Secretary shall provide the Committee with a copy of the
updated guidance once it is finalized. If a decision is made
not to update ER 1165-2-208, the Secretary shall detail the
reasoning for such decision.
LEVEE VEGETATION POLICY
For several years now, the Committee has heard from non-
federal sponsors concerned that the Corps' policy on vegetation
on levees is overly proscriptive and inflexible and does not
adequately take into account on-the-ground conditions. Some
sponsors have highlighted requirements from the Corps that
potentially conflict with requirements under the Endangered
Species Act and under tribal treaty obligations. Some in the
agricultural community have highlighted differing standards on
the width of buffer zones between row crops and the base of a
levee.
The Committee notes the Corps' efforts to further
understanding of the complex issues of vegetation on levees and
levee safety more generally. These efforts include publication
of a literature review in 2010, release of a four-volume
research document in 2011, issuance of the System-wide
Improvement Framework (SWIF) policy in 2011, and continued work
to develop a policy guidance letter (Variance from Vegetation
Standards for Levees and Floodwalls). The Committee encourages
the Corps to maximize collaboration with non-federal interests,
including project sponsors and the agricultural community, and
to give serious consideration to their concerns and proposals
regarding flexibility, regional considerations, financial
impacts, and decision criteria.
PLANNING MODERNIZATION
In February 2013, the Assistant Secretary testified that
the Corps is taking steps to modernize its planning process
through an initiative called SMART Planning (Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Risk-Informed and Timely) and expects
full implementation in fiscal year 2014. The goal of this
initiative (commonly referred to as ``3x3x3'') is to complete
most feasibility studies within 3 years, for $3,000,000 or
less, and with the decision document coordinated by three
levels of the organization (headquarters, division, and
district offices). The Committee strongly supports efforts to
reduce the length of time and the funding required to complete
studies while maintaining quality analysis and an appropriate
level of information for congressional authorization and
funding decisions.
As a precursor to this initiative, the Corps sorted all
initiated studies into active status--those that would be
continued under the new 3x3x3 goal--and inactive status--those
that would be discontinued for reasons as varied as finding no
alternative in the federal interest to lack of a non-federal
sponsor. The Committee is aware that there are numerous active
status studies with capability for fiscal year 2014 that were
not included in the budget request, even while ten new start
studies were proposed. Some of these studies--such as the
Western Lake Erie Basin, Blanchard River, Ohio, study--likely
will not be funded under the fiscal year 2013 operating plan,
possibly due to being ineligible by not receiving funding in
fiscal year 2012. It will be very difficult to meet the goal of
completing studies within three years if no funding is
requested for one or more of those years. The Committee
encourages the Corps to keep its 3x3x3 goal in mind when
determining the mix of active status and new start studies to
propose for funding in future budget requests.
COST ESTIMATING
In 2007, the Corps implemented a risk-based approach to use
in its development of cost estimates. This approach quantifies
the risks for a given project by assigning a dollar value to
the uncertainties. This cost is added to the base estimate to
establish the total project cost estimate. The Committee
commends the Corps for taking steps to strengthen its cost
estimating process. The Committee has heard concerns, however,
that the Corps may be exaggerating the uncertainties on lower
risk projects, thereby artificially inflating the cost
estimates of these types of projects. If true, this practice
defeats the purpose of using a risk-based approach to
developing cost estimates and improperly alters the
authorization and budget development processes. The Committee
directs the Corps to ensure this type of manipulation of cost
estimates does not occur.
PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS
In March 2013, the Council on Environmental Quality
released final Principles and Requirements for Federal
Investments in Water Resources, as well as draft Interagency
Guidelines for public review and comment. Unlike previous
budget requests, the fiscal year 2014 budget request for the
Corps of Engineers does not include funding to support
implementation of these new documents; the Committee provides
no funding for this activity. The Corps shall continue to use
the document dated March 10, 1983, and entitled ``Economic and
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related
Land Resources Implementation Studies'' during the fiscal year
period covered by the Energy and Water Development Act for
2014.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS
Current policy requires the Corps, during the planning
process for aquatic ecosystem restoration (AER) projects, to
select the alternative deemed most cost-effective. There is no
minimum requirement for cost-effectiveness, or any other cost-
related measure, for AER projects, however. While the
difficulties of monetizing the benefits of AER projects cannot
be ignored, this policy stands in stark contrast to the policy
for flood and storm damage reduction and navigation projects.
To be recommended in a Chief's Report, the alternative selected
in a project in these categories must maximize national
economic development and must meet a minimum benefit-to-cost
ratio.
Similarly, in the budget development process, AER projects
are evaluated based on the perceived relative importance of the
ecosystem to be restored, while minimum cost-related measures
heavily influence the evaluation of projects of other
authorized purposes.
The Committee directs the Corps to report to the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate not later than 120 days after enactment of this Act on
potential cost-related measures or metrics suitable for use in
evaluating AER projects for authorization and for funding. The
Corps shall not limit consideration of measures or metrics
based on current policy, but rather include in the report any
changes to policy or statute that would be necessary to
implement use of these measures or metrics.
FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Historically, the Committee has encouraged the
Administration to provide five-year investment plans for all
agencies within the Energy and Water Development jurisdiction,
particularly the Corps. The five-year plan should be based on
realistic assumptions of project funding needs. It is the
Committee's expectation that once projects have been initiated,
the Administration will request responsible annual funding
levels for them through completion.
The executive branch has traditionally been unwilling to
project five-year horizons for projects it has not previously
supported through the budget process. While this unwillingness
to have a dialogue regarding additional investment might be
reasonable under circumstances where there is no likelihood of
additional investment, the Congress consistently has supported
additional investment in the nation's water resource
infrastructure. The uncertainty caused by year-to-year federal
planning leaves too many non-federal sponsors unable to make
informed decisions regarding local funding.
Comprehensive planning is important for understanding
future requirements of projects that have been supported
through the budget process, as well. For example, the fiscal
year 2014 budget request proposes four new Construction starts.
Three of these projects currently are expected to require more
than $2,400,000,000 in federal funding to complete, yet the
budget request includes only $5,000,000 to initiate them. An
understanding of how the Administration expects to make
progress on any new projects--especially within budget requests
that consistently reduce Construction funding--is an essential
piece of information for the Congress to have when evaluating
whether to include funding for new projects.
It would be beneficial for the Congress, the
Administration, and project partners to have a comprehensive
plan to outline requirements for all projects that have
received an appropriation to date or are proposed to begin
receiving funding this year. The Committee continues to welcome
a dialogue to reach a mutually agreeable way to comprehensively
plan for all initiated projects.
In the absence of such a dialogue, the Committee directs
the Corps to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the optimum
timeline and funding requirements to complete each of the
ongoing projects which received construction funding in any of
fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, but are not
slated by the Administration for construction funding in the
fiscal year 2014 budget request. This report also should
include an accounting of the federal and non-federal
investments to date for each project. This report shall be
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate not later than 90 days after
enactment of this Act.
NEW STARTS
The Administration proposes a combined reduction of
$359,000,000 from Investigations and Construction from fiscal
year 2013 and a reduction of $751,000,000 (excluding emergency
funding) from fiscal year 2010, the last time the Committee
provided funding for any new starts. While the Committee
strongly supports additional investment in water resource
projects, the funding limitations set forth by the
Administration present the Committee with a difficult choice
between starting new authorized projects in the Corps and only
funding those projects that are ongoing in an effort to
complete them. The lack of a five-year comprehensive plan
forces the Committee to make this choice based on very limited
information regarding the completion schedule of ongoing
projects and how any new starts would affect that schedule.
Faced with this difficult choice and limited information, the
Committee has determined that prioritizing ongoing projects is
the only responsible course of action and, therefore,
recommends no new starts in any account in fiscal year 2014.
FORMAT OF FUNDING PRIORITIES
Traditionally, the President requested and the Congress
appropriated funds for the Civil Works program on a project-
level basis. Taken together, however, these funding decisions
indicated programmatic priorities and policy preferences. As
with non-project-based programs, the Congress at times
disagreed with the priorities stated in the President's budget
request and made its priorities known in appropriations bills.
Final federal government priorities were established in Acts
passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed by the
President.
On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to
prohibit congressional earmarks, as defined in House rule XXI.
That definition encompasses project-level funding not requested
by the President. Following that vote, the Committee reviewed
the historical format of appropriations for the Corps to see if
there was a more transparent way to highlight programmatic
priorities without abandoning congressional oversight
responsibilities. The fiscal year 2012 Act included a
modification to the format used in previous years, and that
format is continued for fiscal year 2014.
The Committee notes that one argument frequently made
against congressional earmarks is that these activities are
political decisions that divert funding to parochial concerns
and away from national priorities. This argument assumes that
funding decisions made within the executive branch are
inherently objective and devoid of political influence. The
fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Corps of Engineers
disproves this argument and underlying assumption. The budget
request includes projects previously funded only through
congressional earmarks that the executive branch had determined
were inconsistent with policy in the past. No identification or
explanation of policy changes accompany the budget request for
these projects. So either congressional earmarks have been for
projects of national significance, or the executive branch is
just as susceptible to political pressure. The Committee
believes both conclusions to be true.
As in previous years, the Committee lists in report tables
the studies, projects, and activities within each account
requested by the President along with the Committee-recommended
funding level. To advance its programmatic priorities, the
Committee has included additional funding for certain
categories of projects. Also included are criteria by which the
Corps is to evaluate and select specific projects to fund
within those allocations. The Corps is directed to report to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, not later than 60 days after
enactment of this Act, on its final spending plan for fiscal
year 2014.
The Committee expects considerable improvement in the
quality and detail of information provided in fiscal year 2014
regarding the allocation of these additional funds. The
original spending plan submitted for fiscal year 2012 contained
no justification information whatsoever--a completely
unacceptable response to congressional direction. Forty-four
days after the original deadline, the Committee received a bare
minimum of justification information. Unfortunately, much of
this information was more a description of the scope of work
than a justification of how or why individual funding decisions
were made.
To assist the Corps in providing the requested information,
the Committee directs the Corps to develop ratings systems for
use in evaluating projects for allocation of the additional
funding provided in this Act. These evaluation systems may be,
but are not required to be, individualized for each account or
for each category of projects to be funded. Each study or
project eligible to receive additional funds shall be evaluated
under the applicable ratings system. The Corps retains complete
control over the methodology of these ratings systems, but may
not exclude studies or projects from evaluation under these
ratings systems for being ``inconsistent with Administration
policy.''
The executive branch retains complete discretion over
project-specific allocation decisions within the additional
funds provided. The spending plan submitted to the Committee,
however, shall include a detailed description of the evaluation
systems developed and any discrepancies between those studies
and projects with the highest ratings and those studies and
projects that received funding. Discrepancies include highly-
rated activities that did not receive funding as well as
activities that received funding that were not rated as highly
as projects that were not funded. For any study or project
excluded from funding for being ``inconsistent with
Administration policy,'' the spending plan shall explain in
detail why the activity is inconsistent with Administration
policy.
PROJECT COST AUTHORIZATION LIMITS
Water resource projects of the Corps of Engineers typically
have been authorized for construction with a maximum project
cost specified in statute. Section 902 of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 provides the Corps with the
flexibility to increase this authorized cost limit for certain
circumstances (often called the 902 limit). To proceed with a
project that exceeds its 902 limit, the statutory authorization
must be amended. The House rule defining a congressional
earmark generally includes any such project modification unless
requested by the President. This situation makes it incumbent
upon the executive branch to be more mindful of monitoring
project 902 limits and the timeliness of any necessary
legislative proposals. The Corps can no longer simply assume
that the Congress will fix these problems without an official
request. The most appropriate vehicle for these project
modifications would be an authorization bill, such as a WRDA
bill.
The budget request includes legislative language to
increase the authorized costs of three projects. To ensure
these projects can proceed without additional delay, the
Committee includes these provisions in the bill.
The Committee also is aware of other projects that have
reached or will soon reach their 902 limits, or that will be
unable to begin construction due to a 902 limit issue, yet the
Corps has not submitted legislative proposals with the
appropriate justification for these projects. In one case, a
navigation project was identified in the Administration's July
2012 We Can't Wait initiative as one of seven nationally and
regionally significant infrastructure projects that will help
drive job growth and strengthen the economy. Yet without
legislation to address the 902 limit, progress on this project
will quickly grind to a halt. To address this and other similar
situations, the bill includes language providing the Corps with
the flexibility to move forward with projects while the
Congress and the Administration devise a process for addressing
902 limit issues under a ban on congressional earmarks.
The Committee directs the Corps to develop, and submit to
the appropriate committees of the Congress, a plan for the
oversight and management of 902 limit project modifications.
This plan should cover, at a minimum, identification of
potential 902 limit issues, development of the appropriate
analyses and reports detailing updated project costs, and all
levels of review within the Administration necessary to submit
the legislative proposal to the Congress. The Committee further
directs the Corps to submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a list of all projects, including those projects for
which the Administration might not budget, with the potential
to exceed the 902 limits within the next two fiscal years
assuming funding at capability in each fiscal year. The list
should be submitted semi-annually, including concurrently with
the annual budget request.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING
To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2014
is consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the
movement of funds, and to improve overall budget execution, the
bill carries a legislative provision outlining the
circumstances under which the Corps of Engineers may reprogram
funds.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 APPROPRIATIONS LEVELS
Unless otherwise noted, all references to fiscal year 2013
appropriations for the Corps of Engineers in the report text
shall be exclusive of the amounts provided in the Disaster
Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total program level of
$4,876,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers, $104,000,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and $50,000,000 above the budget request.
After accounting for the rescission of $200,000,000 of prior-
year appropriations in title V of this bill and the rescission
of $100,000,000 in the budget request, the recommendation of
$4,676,000,000 is $304,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$50,000,000 below the budget request. The rescission is to be
derived from prior-year balances under the Investigations,
Construction, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation
and Maintenance accounts at the discretion of the Corps.
A table summarizing the fiscal year 2013 enacted
appropriation, the fiscal year 2014 budget request, and the
Committee-recommended levels is provided below:
(Dollars in thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 FY 2014
Account enacted* request Cmte. rec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations.................................................. $125,000 $90,000 $90,000
Construction.................................................... 1,674,000 1,350,000 1,343,000
Mississippi River and tributaries............................... 252,000 279,000 249,000
Operation and maintenance....................................... 2,410,000 2,588,000 2,682,000
Regulatory program.............................................. 193,000 200,000 193,000
FUSRAP.......................................................... 109,000 104,000 104,000
Flood control and coastal emergencies........................... 27,000 28,000 28,000
Expenses........................................................ 185,000 182,000 182,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works... 5,000 5,000 5,000
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, Program Level.................................... 4,980,000 4,826,000 4,876,000
Rescission...................................................... - - - -100,000 -200,000**
-----------------------------------------------
NET APPROPRIATION, Corps of Engineers--Civil............ 4,980,000 4,726,000 4,676,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004 OMB ATB.
**Included in Title V of the Act.
INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $125,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 90,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 90,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -35,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
This appropriation funds studies to determine the need for,
the engineering and economic feasibility of, and the
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and
related land resource problems; preconstruction engineering and
design; data collection; interagency coordination; and
research.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,000,000,
$35,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance, are shown on the following table:
Updated capability.--Following the submission of the budget
request, the Committee received from the Corps updated
information regarding the amount of work that could be
accomplished in fiscal year 2014; the Committee adjusted
project-specific allocations downward accordingly. If the
Committee receives further capability updates, the Committee
will consider further allocation updates, as appropriate. In
the Investigations account, the South San Francisco Shoreline,
California, allocation was adjusted.
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee notes
that funding for Savannah Harbor Expansion, GA, is provided in
the Construction account, as in previous years.
Research and Development.--The Committee supports the
Corps' efforts to significantly improve the safety, efficiency,
reliability and cost of performing inspections of critical and
aging infrastructure and is aware that innovative and
technically advanced methods of inspection that would assist in
performing this vital mission are being developed
collaboratively by the Corps and the private sector, such as
non-destructive testing (NDT) and non-destructive evaluation
(NDE) techniques for the inspection of trunnion rods on dams.
In order to accelerate the delivery and deployment of
innovative technologies for infrastructure inspection, the
Committee urges the Corps to continue to prioritize funding for
the validation of proven, high-payoff, innovative practices and
technologies at the national level.
Water Resources Priorities Study.--No funding is included
for this new item.
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 studies initiated that
will be suspended or slowed under the limits of the budget
request. These studies could lead to projects with significant
economic benefits, particularly by increasing national
competitiveness through marine transportation improvements and
by avoiding damages caused by flooding and coastal storms. The
Committee includes additional funding for ongoing navigation
and flood and storm damage reduction studies. While this
additional funding is shown in the feasibility column, the
Corps should use these funds in recon, feasibility, and PED, as
applicable. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that
either was not included in the Administration's request or was
inadequately budgeted. A study shall be eligible for this
funding if: (1) it has received funding, other than through a
reprogramming, in at least one of the previous three fiscal
years; or (2) it was previously funded and could reach a
significant milestone or produce significant outputs in fiscal
year 2014. In no case shall funds be used to initiate new
studies within this account or for any item where funding was
specifically denied. Further, none of these funds may be used
to alter any existing cost-share requirements.
As discussed earlier in this report, the Corps shall
develop a ratings system and evaluate ongoing studies under
this system prior to allocating these additional funds. The
Corps shall consider developing a ratings system that gives
priority to completing or accelerating ongoing studies that
will enhance the nation's economic development, job growth, and
international competitiveness, or are for projects located in
areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. Not later
than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the Corps shall
provide to the Committee a work plan: (1) detailing the ratings
system developed and used to evaluate studies; (2) delineating
how these funds are to be distributed; (3) including a summary
of the work to be accomplished with each allocation; and (4) a
list and description of each discrepancy between the results of
the study evaluations and the allocations made. No funds shall
be obligated for any project under this program which has not
been justified in such a report.
Budgeting for small population areas.--The Committee
recognizes that a small city, less than 50,000 in population,
is at a disadvantage in comparison with its large urban
counterparts under the Army Corps of Engineers utilization of
high benefit-cost ratios in its budgeting process. The
Committee directs the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the
impact of flood risk on a small city's economic viability in
determining budget priorities.
CONSTRUCTION
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $1,674,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 1,350,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 1,343,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -331,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -7,000,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
This appropriation funds construction, major
rehabilitation, and related activities for water resource
projects whose principal purpose is to provide commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, or aquatic
ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. Portions of this
account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$1,343,000,000, $331,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$7,000,000 below the budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Updated capability.--Following the submission of the budget
request, the Committee received from the Corps updated
information regarding the amount of work that could be
accomplished in fiscal year 2014; the Committee adjusted
project-specific allocations downward accordingly. If the
Committee receives further capability updates, the Committee
will consider further allocation updates, as appropriate. In
the Construction account, the following allocations were
adjusted: Fort Pierce Beach, Florida; Pinellas County, Florida;
Lower Savannah River Basin, Georgia; and Savannah Harbor
Disposal Areas, Georgia and South Carolina.
Isabella Dams and Reservoir, California.--The Committee is
aware that the Corps' planned Isabella Lake Dam Safety
Modification Project will require damage to or demolition of
multiple U.S. Forest Service administrative, workshop, and
recreation buildings and facilities around the reservoir.
Failure to rebuild or relocate these facilities could cause
severe economic hardship to the communities in the region. A
1964 memorandum of agreement between the Secretaries of the
Army and Agriculture indicates the Corps will replace any
Forest Service facilities adversely affected by Corps projects.
The 2008 Ancillary Operating Agreement No. 4 for Lake Isabella,
California, between the Corps Sacramento District Engineer and
Sequoia National Forest Supervisor, indicates the Corps shall
replace recreation and administrative facilities that are
impacted by Lake Isabella project activities. However, the
Corps has recently indicated it does not have sufficient
authority to replace Forest Service facilities impacted by the
Lake Isabella project. Therefore, the Committee strongly
encourages the Corps to explore all available solutions,
including, but not limited to, administrative or legal
remedies, to rebuild or relocate U.S. Forest Service facilities
impacted by the Isabella Lake Dam Safety Modification Project.
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The President's budget
request includes funding for the Savannah Harbor Expansion,
Georgia project in the Investigations account. As in previous
fiscal years, however, the Committee includes that funding in
the Construction account.
Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon and
Idaho.--Research conducted by Oregon State University (USGS)
concluded that Caspian Terns nesting at Goose Island in
Potholes Reservoir, as well as other predatory birds in the
region, including cormorants and gulls, consume as many as 15
percent of migrating endangered upper Columbia River Steelhead
smolts. The Committee directs the Corps to provide a written
report to the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee
not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act on what
actions have been taken, what progress has been made to date,
and what further actions are planned, to address this
significant threat to endangered salmon species.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps has
ongoing, authorized construction projects that would cost tens
of billions of dollars to complete, yet the Administration
continues to request a mere fraction of the funding necessary
to complete those projects. The Committee includes additional
funds to continue ongoing projects and activities to enhance
the nation's economic growth and international competitiveness.
The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that either was
not included in the Administration's request or was
inadequately budgeted. A project shall be eligible for this
funding if: (1) it has received funding, other than through a
reprogramming, in at least one of the previous three fiscal
years; or (2) it was previously funded and could reach a
significant milestone or produce significant outputs in fiscal
year 2014. None of these funds may be used to initiate new
projects, for any item where funding was specifically denied,
for projects in the Continuing Authorities Program, or to alter
any existing cost-share requirements.
As discussed earlier in this report, the Corps shall
develop a ratings system and evaluate ongoing projects under
this system prior to allocating these additional funds. The
Corps shall consider developing a ratings system that takes
into consideration the following: benefits of the funded work
to the national economy; extent to which the work will enhance
national, regional, or local economic development; number of
jobs created directly by the funded activity; ability to
obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal year, including
consideration of the ability of the non-federal sponsor to
provide any required cost-share; ability to complete the
project, separable element, or project phase with the funds
allocated; for flood and storm damage reduction projects,
including authorized nonstructural measures, the population,
economic activity, or public infrastructure at risk, as
appropriate; for flood and storm damage reduction projects,
including authorized nonstructural measures, the severity of
risk of flooding or the frequency with which an area has
experienced flooding; and for navigation projects, the number
of jobs or level of economic activity to be supported by
completion of the project, separable element, or project phase.
Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the
Corps shall provide to the Committee a work plan: (1) detailing
the ratings system developed and used to evaluate projects; (2)
delineating how these funds are to be distributed; (3)
including a summary of the work to be accomplished with each
allocation; and (4) a list and description of each discrepancy
between the results of the project evaluations and the
allocations made. No funds shall be obligated for any project
under this program which has not been justified in such a
report.
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).--The Committee
continues to support all sections of the Continuing Authorities
Program. Funding is provided for eight CAP sections at a total
of $33,250,000, an increase of $4,250,000 above the budget
request which proposed funding for only five sections. This
program provides a useful tool for the Corps to undertake small
localized projects without the lengthy study and authorization
process typical of most larger Corps projects. The management
of the Continuing Authorities Program should continue
consistent with direction provided in fiscal year 2012. This
direction is restated here for convenience.
For each CAP section, available funds shall be allocated
utilizing this sequence of steps until the funds are exhausted:
--capability-level funds for ongoing projects that
have executed cost-sharing agreements for the
applicable phase;
--capability-level funds for projects that are ready
for execution of new cost-sharing agreements for the
applicable phase and for which Corps headquarters
authorizes execution of the agreements;
--funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other
projects previously funded for the applicable phase but
not ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements;
and
--funds as permitted by Corps policies, for projects
not previously funded for the applicable phase.
Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate
Field Operating Agency (FOA) for projects requested by that
FOA. If the FOA finds that the study/project for which funds
were requested cannot go forward, the funds are to be returned
to the Corps' headquarters to be reallocated based on the
nationwide priority listing. In no case should the FOA retain
these funds for use on a different project than the one for
which the funds were requested without the explicit approval of
the Corps' headquarters.
Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for
each CAP section, funds shall be allocated to the projects in
that section that rank high according to the following factors:
high overall performance based on outputs; high percent
fiscally complete; and high unobligated carry-in. Section 14
funds shall be allocated to the projects that address the most
significant risks and adverse consequences, irrespective of
phase or previous funding history.
The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending
and terminating inactive projects. Suspended projects shall not
be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in
writing its support for the project and establishes its
willingness and capability to execute its project
responsibilities.
In order to provide a mix of studies, design and
construction within each CAP section, the Corps is directed to
divide the funding generally 80/20 between the Design and
Implementation and the Feasibility phases within each
authority. The Chief of Engineers shall provide a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than 30 days after enactment of this
Act detailing how funds will be distributed to the individual
items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal year. The
Chief shall also provide an annual report at the end of each
fiscal year detailing the progress made on the backlog of
projects. The report should include the completions and
terminations as well as progress of ongoing work.
The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects
in all sections as funding allows. New projects may be
initiated after an assessment is made that such projects can be
funded over time based on historical averages of the
appropriation for that section and after prior approval by the
Committees on Appropriations.
Estuary Restoration Program.--No funding is provided for
this item as the authorization of appropriations expired at the
end of fiscal year 2012.
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Projects.--Some coastal
storm damage reduction projects provide for periodic
nourishment. These projects are authorized for construction
over a 50-year period. Some of the earliest projects initiated
are coming up on the end of the authorized time period, and the
non-federal sponsors have indicated interest in extending the
authorizations. To date, the Corps has not clarified its policy
for evaluating these requests. The Committee directs the Corps
to consider existing authorities, the unique elements of these
projects, and similarities to projects with other authorized
purposes. The Corps shall report to the appropriate
congressional committees, not later than 90 days after
enactment of this Act, on any legislative changes necessary to
provide a clear policy on this issue.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $252,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 279,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 249,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -30,000,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
This appropriation funds planning, construction, and
operation and maintenance activities associated with projects
to reduce flood damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial
valley below Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $249,000,000,
$3,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $30,000,000 below the
budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The value of prior
investments in the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
cannot be disputed, yet considerable work remains to complete
this vital project in the heart of our nation. Therefore, the
recommendation provides additional funds to continue ongoing
studies, projects or maintenance. The Committee directs that
these funds be used for flood control, navigation, water
supply, ground water protection, waterfowl management, bank
stabilization and environmental restoration work. The intent of
these funds is for ongoing work 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 investigations,
construction, and operation and maintenance, as applicable. A
project shall be eligible for this funding if: (1) it has
received funding, other than through a reprogramming, in at
least one of the previous three fiscal years; or (2) it was
previously funded and could reach a significant milestone or
produce significant outputs in fiscal year 2014. None of these
funds may be used to start new projects or activities or for
any item where funding was specifically denied.
As discussed earlier in this report, the Corps shall
develop a ratings system and evaluate ongoing projects under
this system prior to allocating these additional funds. The
Corps shall consider developing a ratings system that gives
priority to completing or accelerating ongoing work that will
enhance the region's and nation's economic development, job
growth, and international competitiveness, or that is for
projects located in areas that have suffered recent natural
disasters.
Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the
Corps shall provide to the Committee a work plan: (1) detailing
the ratings system developed and used to evaluate projects; (2)
delineating how these funds are to be distributed; (3)
including a summary of the work to be accomplished with each
allocation; and (4) a list and description of each discrepancy
between the results of the project evaluations and the
allocations made. No funds shall be obligated for any project
under this program which has not been justified in such a
report.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $2,410,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 2,588,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 2,682,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +272,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. +94,000,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and
related activities at water resource projects the Corps
operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of
dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other
facilities as authorized in various River and Harbor, Flood
Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. Related
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of
completed projects, removal of sunken vessels, and the
collection of domestic, waterborne commerce statistics.
Portions of this account are financed through the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$2,682,000,000, $272,000,000 above fiscal year 2013 and
$94,000,000 above the budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Missouri River Municipal and Industrial Water Supply
Reallocation Study.--The Committee has heard concerns from
existing water supply users that this study could result in
sharp increases in monthly water bills. The Corps is encouraged
to explore all reasonable options for mitigating abrupt cost
increases.
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. The Committee recognizes the ability of properly
maintained ports to serve as drivers of economic growth within
communities, states, and regions. On the other hand, 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
risk infrastructure failure, which can cause substantial
economic losses. The Committee believes that investing in
operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of infrastructure
today will save taxpayers money in the future.
The Committee includes additional funds to continue ongoing
projects and activities. The intent of these funds is for
ongoing work that either was not included in the
Administration's request or was inadequately budgeted. None of
these funds may be used to initiate new projects or programs,
for any item where funding was specifically denied, or to alter
any existing cost-share requirements.
As discussed earlier in this report, the Corps shall
develop a ratings system and evaluate ongoing projects under
this system prior to allocating these additional funds. The
Corps shall consider developing a ratings system that takes
into consideration the following: ability to complete ongoing
work maintaining authorized depths and widths of harbors and
shipping channels, including where contaminated sediments are
present; ability to address critical maintenance backlog;
presence of the U.S. Coast Guard; extent to which the work will
enhance national, regional, or local economic development,
including domestic manufacturing capacity; extent to which the
work will promote job growth or international competitiveness;
for harbor maintenance activities, total tonnage handled, total
exports, total imports, dollar value of cargo handled, energy
infrastructure and national security needs served, lack of
alternative means of freight movement, and savings over
alternative means of freight movement; number of jobs created
directly by the funded activity; ability to obligate the funds
allocated within the fiscal year; ability to complete the
project, separable element, or project phase within the funds
allocated; and the risk of imminent failure or closure of the
facility.
The Committee is concerned that the Administration's
criteria for navigation maintenance do not allow small, remote,
or subsistence harbors and waterways to properly compete for
scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee urges the
Corps to revise the criteria used for determining which
navigation projects are funded in order to develop a reasonable
and equitable allocation under this account. The criteria
should include the economic impact that these projects provide
to local and regional economies, in particular those with
national defense or public health and safety importance.
Further, the Committee directs the Corps to allocate not less
than $30,000,000 of the additional funds provided to small,
remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways.
Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the
Corps shall provide to the Committee a work plan: (1) detailing
the ratings system developed and used to evaluate projects; (2)
delineating how these funds are to be distributed; (3)
including a summary of the work to be accomplished with each
allocation; and (4) a list and description of each discrepancy
between the results of the project evaluations and the
allocations made. No funds shall be obligated for any project
under this program which has not been justified in such a
report.
Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability.--No funding is included
for this new item.
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 assessment 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 and within existing authority, to
assist the States, Tribes and local authorities in their
efforts to prevent the spread of invasive mussels to Federal
projects in the region.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $193,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 200,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 193,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -7,000,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
This appropriation provides funds to administer laws
pertaining to the regulation of activities affecting U.S.
waters, including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and
Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act, and the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
Appropriated funds are used to review and process permit
applications, ensure compliance on permitted sites, protect
important aquatic resources, and support watershed planning
efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation with
states and local communities.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $193,000,000,
the same as fiscal year 2013 and $7,000,000 below the budget
request.
The Committee is aware of at least two recent instances in
which local economic development organizations have applied for
permits to prepare sites to attract new economic activity, but
the Corps has denied or otherwise frustrated those efforts.
Although the local organizations have established precedent by
providing several examples of where similar applications were
approved, the Corps now claims its regulations require the
identification of a specified end-user of a proposed
development so it can review final design plans and other exact
specifications of the proposed development in order to issue a
permit. The Committee strongly rejects this new interpretation
of Clean Water Act requirements. The Corps is not a local land-
use planning agency, and the Clean Water Act provides neither
the directive nor the authority for the Corps to assume such
responsibilities. The Committee encourages the Corps to work
with these permit applicants, and any others with similar
applications, to reach a better balance between allowing
desperately-needed economic development while still
safeguarding important environmental resources.
The Committee continues to learn of examples of
infrastructure projects delayed for years due to repeated
reviews being performed sequentially. Communities rely on these
projects for commerce and transit, and delays can adversely
affect public safety and economic growth. The Committee
encourages the Corps to pursue ways to shorten review times,
including by performing reviews concurrently to the maximum
extent practicable.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $109,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 104,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 104,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level
radioactive materials and mixed wastes located at sites
contaminated as a result of the nation's early efforts to
develop atomic weapons.
The Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of
Energy to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP
sites where the Department had not completed cleanup. The
Committee did not transfer to the Corps ownership of and
accountability for real property interests, which remain with
the Department. The Committee expects the Department to
continue to provide its institutional knowledge and expertise
to ensure the success of this program and to serve the nation
and the affected communities.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $104,000,000,
$5,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request. The Committee continues to support the prioritization
of sites, especially those that are nearing completion. Within
the funds provided in accordance with the budget request, the
Corps is directed to complete the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study of the former Sylvania nuclear fuel site at
Hicksville, New York, and, as appropriate, to proceed
expeditiously to a Record of Decision and initiation of any
necessary remediation in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA).
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $27,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 28,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 28,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
This appropriation funds planning, training, and other
measures that ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond to
floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and to support
emergency operations in response to such natural disasters,
including advance measures, flood fighting, emergency
operations, the provision of potable water on an emergency
basis, and the repair of certain flood and storm damage
reduction projects.
The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for this account,
$1,000,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request.
The Committee notes that the Budget Control Act of 2011
(P.L. 112-25) provides for the appropriation of funds for
disaster relief only in areas designated as major disasters
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). The Corps
can relatively easily determine the location of many emergency
activities funded under this account, and therefore these
activities may be funded using amounts designated for disaster
relief. The Corps has not, however, traditionally tracked many
other more programmatic activities to specific locations. In
order to minimize the potential impact to its base funding, the
Corps is directed to develop a method for tracking emergency-
related activities to specific locations to the greatest extent
possible. The Corps shall report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act on progress
in this regard, including a list of any activities the Corps
determines cannot be tracked to specific locations and an
estimate of funding used for these activities over the past 10
years.
EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $185,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 182,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 182,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
This appropriation funds the executive direction and
management of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the
Division Offices, and certain research and statistical
functions of the Corps of Engineers.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $182,000,000,
$3,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request.
The Committee has become aware of plans to restructure
several District offices--plans that have been announced to
District staff but that were not communicated to the Committee
in any form prior to the announcement. While the Committee
recognizes that a reduction of $717,000,000 in the civil works
program over the course of several years may necessitate a
realignment of staff and responsibilities within the Corps,
this reduction is no greater than that proposed in budget
requests over the same period of time. As such, it is incumbent
on the Corps to communicate these changes, along with the
justification for such actions, in the budget request or, at a
minimum, prior to announcing any restructuring plan. The
Committee has requested detailed information on this
restructuring to understand the implications for the state and
local communities that depend on the District offices. The
Committee expects that no restructuring will occur until the
Corps has provided a detailed justification for the realignment
of responsibilities.
The Corps is directed to be ready to report to the
appropriate committees of Congress not later than 90 days after
enactment of this Act on an implementation plan for aligning
Corps policy regarding the possession of firearms at water
resources development projects covered under section 327.0 of
title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, with the comparable
policies of the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife
Service pursuant to Public Law 111-24. This plan shall detail
the actions necessary to address any statutory, regulatory,
budgetary, or other policy issues related to such an alignment
of policy.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 5,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 5,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
oversees the Civil Works budget and policy, whereas the Corps'
executive direction and management of the Civil Works program
are funded from the Expenses account.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000,
the same as fiscal year 2013 and the budget request.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for
the purchase or hire of passenger motor vehicles.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the
obligation or expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of
funds in this title except in certain circumstances.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds
in this Act to carry out any contract that commits funds beyond
the amounts appropriated for that program, project, or
activity.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the award of
continuing contracts for any project for which funds are
derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund until such time as
a long-term mechanism to enhance revenues sufficient to meet
the cost-sharing requirements is enacted.
The bill continues a provision requiring the submission of
any Chief's report to the appropriate committees of the
Congress.
The bill continues a provision allowing the Corps to
implement actions to prevent aquatic nuisance species from
dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic
connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River
Basin. The Committee remains concerned by the threat of aquatic
nuisance species to the nation's water bodies and recognizes
the critical role of the Army Corps of Engineers in preventing,
controlling, and managing the threat of Asian carp. The
Committee notes that the Corps cooperates with other federal,
state, and local government agencies through the Asian Carp
Regional Coordinating Committee to execute a comprehensive
strategy to deal with Asian carp.
The bill makes permanent a provision authorizing the
transfer of funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate
for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers projects.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds from being
used to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction
under the Clean Water Act.
The bill contains a provision increasing the authorized
cost of the Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois and Kentucky,
project.
The bill contains a provision increasing the authorized
cost of the Miami Harbor, Florida, project.
The bill contains a provision increasing the authorized
cost of the Little Calumet River Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch),
Indiana, project.
The bill contains a provision regarding the limitation
concerning total project costs in section 902 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds from being
used to develop or implement changes to certain definitions for
the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
The bill contains a provision allowing the possession of
firearms at water resources development projects under certain
circumstances.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $21,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014**............................... 3,500,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 8,725,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -12,275,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. +5,225,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
**The budget requests the Central Utah Project as part of the Bureau of
Reclamation. For purposes of comparison, the budget request is shown
here.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central
Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in
that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for
carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The fiscal year 2014 budget request proposes to repeal the
statutory prohibition on delegation of responsibility and put
oversight of the Central Utah Project under the Bureau of
Reclamation. The Committee rejects this proposal.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2014 to carry
out the Central Utah Project is $8,725,000, $12,275,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and $5,225,000 above the budget request.
Within the funds recommended, the following amounts are
provided for the Central Utah Project construction by activity:
Utah Lake Drainage Basin Delivery System................ $5,225,000
Water Conservation Measures............................. - - -
Fish & Wildlife Conservation Projects................... 1,200,000
Total, Central Utah Project Construction............ 6,425,000
The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount
of $1,000,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission. These funds, as
proposed in the budget request, are to be used to implement the
fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation
projects authorized in Title III of Public Law 102-575; and to
complete mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 Bureau of
Reclamation planning documents, as follows:
Title III--Fish and Wildlife, Recreation and Mitigation, $300,000
and Conservation.......................................
Section 201(a)(1) Mitigation Measures................... 700,000
Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 1,000,000
Commission.............................................
For program oversight and administration, the Committee
recommends $1,300,000, the same as the budget request.
Bureau of Reclamation
FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET OVERVIEW
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is
to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in
an environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public. Since its establishment by the
Reclamation Act of 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has
developed water supply facilities that have contributed to
sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life in
the western states. Lands and communities served by Reclamation
projects have been developed to meet agricultural, tribal,
urban, and industrial needs. Reclamation continues to develop
authorized facilities to store and convey new water supplies
and is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17
western states. Reclamation maintains 476 dams and 348
reservoirs with the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of
water.
As Reclamation's large impoundments and appurtenant
facilities reach their design life, the projected cost of
operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating Reclamation
infrastructure continues to grow, yet Reclamation has not
budgeted funding sufficient to implement a comprehensive
program to reduce its maintenance backlog. At the same time,
Reclamation is increasingly relied upon to provide water supply
to federally-recognized Indian tribes through water
settlements, rural communities through its Title I Rural Water
Program, and municipalities through its Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse Program. Balancing these competing
priorities will be challenging and requires active
participation and leadership on the part of Reclamation and its
technical staff.
The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation totals $1,049,584,000. After accounting for
proposed changes in account structure, the request for
activities funded under the Bureau of Reclamation in recent
years is $1,046,084,000. The Committee recommendation totals
$956,032,000, $91,687,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$90,052,000 below the budget request.
A table summarizing the fiscal year 2013 enacted
appropriation, the fiscal year 2014 budget request, and the
Committee recommendation is provided below.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 FY 2014
Account enacted* request Cmte rec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Related Resources...... $895,000 $791,135 $812,744
Central Valley Project 53,068 53,288 53,288
Restoration Fund................
California Bay-Delta Restoration. 39,651 37,000 30,000
Policy and Administration........ 60,000 60,000 60,000
Indian Water Rights Settlements.. - - - 78,661 - - -
San Joaquin River Restoration - - - 26,000 - - -
Fund............................
Central Utah Project Completion.. - - - 3,500 - - -
--------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of Reclamation. 1,047,719 1,049,584 956,032
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $895,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 791,135,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 812,744,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -82,256,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. +21,609,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Water and Related Resources account supports the
development, construction, management, and restoration of water
and related natural resources in the 17 western states. The
account includes funds for operating and maintaining existing
facilities to obtain the greatest overall levels of benefits,
to protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to
improve the use of water and related natural resources.
For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends
$812,744,000, $82,256,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$21,609,000 above the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes in this account certain Indian Water
Rights Settlements proposed for funding under a separate
account in the President's budget request. No funding is
included for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, which the
President's request also proposed as a new separate account.
Adjusted for this change in account structure, the
recommendation is $83,052,000 below the budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.--The budget request
again proposes an account separate from the Water and Related
Resources account for discretionary funding of San Joaquin
River Restoration activities. As in past years, the Committee
includes this line item within the Water and Related Resources
account, although no funding is provided.
Indian Water Rights Settlements.--The budget request again
proposes a new appropriations account for five Indian water
rights settlements. As in prior fiscal years, however, the
Committee includes funding for these settlements in the Water
and Related Resources account.
WaterSMART Program.--No funding is provided for the new
Shared Investment Water Innovation Program. Without additional
authority, it is likely that much of the funding requested for
other components of the WaterSMART Program would not be usable
by Reclamation. Review and reauthorization of the program are
the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee. Therefore, the
Committee reduces funding for the WaterSMART Program so that it
stays within the existing authorization ceiling.
WaterSMART Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse
Projects.--The Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse program is intended to help ensure the
reliability of water supplies throughout the West. The
Committee has been informed that there may be an opportunity to
enhance the program's effectiveness through the advancement of
regional-scale projects. These regional projects can require
longer planning and construction timeframes than other more
locally focused projects. Accordingly, the Committee encourages
Reclamation to review options for the advancement of regional-
scale water reclamation and reuse projects, including through
the provision of planning and construction assistance grants
that can each be used over a period of up to five years.
Kettleman City, California.--The Committee is concerned by
the immediate and long-term public health threat posed by
benzene and arsenic contamination of groundwater that the
Kettleman City Community Services District relies on to supply
its 1,500 residents. Despite the multi-year efforts of the
Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water
Resources, Kings County, and Central Valley Project and State
Water Project contractors to identify a reliable, alternative
source of clean drinking water and means for delivery, the
problem persists. The Committee urges the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and in
collaboration with state and local entities, including the
California Department of Public Health, and California's State
Water Resources Control Board, to continue to work
expeditiously with Kettleman City Community Services District
officials and other relevant stakeholders to address the city's
water needs. The Secretary is further directed to report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate on the Bureau's activities related to this
matter not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act.
Buried Metallic Water Pipe.--The Committee made clear in
the fiscal year 2012 Act and the fiscal year 2013 House report
that concerns persist regarding implementation of Reclamation's
Technical Memorandum 8140-CC-2004-1 (``Corrosion Considerations
for Buried Metallic Water Pipe''). The Committee expected
Reclamation to take these concerns seriously and to revisit its
implementation of the memorandum. Unfortunately, Reclamation
has stated unequivocally that implementation continues
unchanged. Specifically, the Committee is concerned that
Reclamation's level of reliance on this memorandum may be
holding different materials to different standards of
reliability and increasing project costs unnecessarily. The
Committee again clarifies that the vague--and in practice
seemingly lengthy--deviation process mentioned in Reclamation
Manual Policy, Performing Designs and Construction Activities,
FAC P03 is not sufficient to avoid the perception of use of the
memorandum as the ``sole basis'' for decisions. Therefore, not
later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, Reclamation
shall be prepared to report to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate a detailed plan
for complying with the fiscal year 2012 Act, as reiterated and
further clarified in the fiscal year 2013 House report and this
report. Yet another claim that Reclamation has always been in
compliance with this directive and no changes are necessary
will not be a satisfactory response.
Additionally, the Committee reiterates its concern that
such a highly visible and controversial issue needs to avoid
not just actual bias and predetermined outcomes, but also any
appearance of it. Therefore, Reclamation is directed to ensure
that all assembly and analysis of data on pipeline reliability
required in the fiscal year 2012 Act is conducted by an
appropriate independent third-party.
Groundwater Recharge.--Recognizing the importance of water
conservation especially in the West, the Committee requests the
Bureau of Reclamation share any available studies and planning
models with communities implementing groundwater recharge
projects.
Desalination Technologies.--The Committee continues to
express support for the development of ocean water desalination
technologies and efforts to provide additional water supplies
to the nation. The Committee has not included funding for this
activity because current authorization under the Water
Desalination Act of 1996 expires at the end of fiscal year
2013. If this authorization is extended by the authorizing
committee, the Committee will reconsider funding for this
program.
Quagga and Zebra Mussels.--The Bureau of Reclamation in its
operations on the Colorado River shall report to Congress on
the costs and benefits of various available methods, including
chlorine and biopesticides, to address and mitigate the current
problems posed by quagga and zebra mussels on Reclamation's
infrastructure and mission. The report should include an
analysis of the efficacy of each treatment system.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $53,068,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 53,288,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 53,288,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +220,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
This fund was established to carry out the provisions of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and to provide
funding for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition,
and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the
Central Valley area of California. Resources are derived from
donations, revenues from voluntary water transfers and tiered
water pricing, and Friant Division surcharges. The account also
is financed through additional mitigation and restoration
payments collected on an annual basis from project
beneficiaries.
For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends $53,288,000,
$220,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for
programs and activities according to the Administration's
request. The Committee notes that the increase for this account
in the budget request and recommendation is based on a three-
year rolling average of collections, in accordance with the
authorizing statute.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $39,651,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 37,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 30,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -9,651,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -7,000,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The California Bay-Delta Restoration account funds the
federal share of water supply and reliability improvements,
ecosystem improvements, and other activities being developed
for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds
by a state and federal partnership (CALFED). Federal
participation in this program was initially authorized in the
California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act
enacted in 1996.
For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends $30,000,000,
$9,651,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $7,000,000 below the
budget request. The Committee adopts the budget proposal to
remove reference to the California Bay-Delta Authority in the
legislative text. The reference is unnecessary because the
Authority has been replaced by the Delta Stewardship Council
and no funding has been requested or provided for the Council.
The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation, is encouraged to expedite completion of
the planning and feasibility studies and environmental impact
statements associated with the water storage projects
identified in section 103(d)(1) of the Water Supply,
Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108-
361).
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 60,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 60,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Policy and Administration account provides for the
executive direction and management of all Reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's office in
Washington, D.C.; the Technical Service Center in Denver,
Colorado; and in five regional offices. The Denver and regional
offices charge individual projects or activities for direct
beneficial services and related administrative and technical
costs. These charges are covered under other appropriations.
For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends $60,000,000, the
same as fiscal year 2013 and the budget request.
The Committee remains concerned about the limited
information regarding activities included in the annual budget
request that is provided to the Committee. Particularly as new,
large, and costly projects and programs are proposed for
initiation, Reclamation must provide detailed analysis and
explanation of how these commitments will be met in the future
and the impacts to ongoing projects and programs. Without an
understanding of out-year funding needs of activities in the
budget request, for example, it is difficult for the Committee
to evaluate the budget proposal and the prioritization of
actions it represents. Reclamation is directed to work with the
Committee to develop a mutually acceptable scope of information
to be included in, or concurrent with, the standard budget
justification materials provided to the Congress.
The Committee previously has directed the Administration to
produce a five-year plan that serves the public interest by
providing visibility into Reclamation's future plans and
spending. To date, Reclamation has failed to provide that plan
to the Committee. The Committee once again directs the
Administration to fulfill the Committee's request to provide an
adequate and useful five-year plan.
The Committee expects that the five-year plan will include
the following: (1) a funding scenario which reflects the
Administration's expenditure ceilings, including inflation for
the out-years; (2) a list of active projects, as defined by a
project receiving funding in the previous three years, for
which funding is not proposed in the plan; (3) a full
accounting of all rural water, Tribal water settlement, and
Title XVI projects that are currently authorized, the total
authorization, the balance to complete, and total
appropriations to date; (4) an estimate of the total cost of
extraordinary and emergency operation and maintenance to
address the backlog of project needs due to the aging of
Reclamation infrastructure; and (5) an explanation of the
methodology used in determining the project allocations,
together with the direction provided to field offices in the
preparation of the five-year plan.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for
the purchase of passenger motor vehicles.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
The bill continues a provision regarding the circumstances
in which the Bureau of Reclamation may reprogram funds.
The bill continues a provision regarding the San Luis Unit
and Kesterson Reservoir in California.
The bill includes a provision regarding pipeline
reliability standards.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
INTRODUCTION
Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department
of Energy programs, including Renewable Energy, Energy
Reliability and Efficiency; Nuclear Energy; Fossil Energy
Research and Development; Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserves; the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve; the Energy Information Administration;
Non-Defense Environmental Management; the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund; Science; the Advanced
Research Projects Agency--Energy; Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program; Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing
Loans Program; Departmental Administration; Office of the
Inspector General; the National Nuclear Security Administration
(Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval
Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator); Defense
Environmental Management; Other Defense Activities; the Power
Marketing Administrations; and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
Committee Recommendation
The Department of Energy has requested a total budget of
$28,953,893,000, as estimated by the Congressional Budget
Office, in fiscal year 2014 to fund programs in its five
primary mission areas: science, energy, environmental cleanup,
nuclear nonproliferation, and national security. The Department
of Energy budget request is $1,910,466,000 above fiscal year
2013 and, once again, includes significant increases to
renewable energy programs and national defense mission areas
while proposing significant reductions to Nuclear Energy and
Fossil Energy Research and Development.
The Committee's recommendation recognizes the difficult
budgetary realities faced for fiscal year 2014. It
significantly restructures the balance of the bill to ensure
inherently federal responsibilities, such as national security,
basic science activities, and environmental cleanup, are
supported. The limited remaining resources are allocated to
programs that can best address the threat of high gasoline and
electricity prices and to those that help support American
economic competitiveness in a global energy marketplace.
Major Committee Concerns
Unfortunately, this budget request once again fails to
reflect a coherent energy policy or plan for this country. The
President continues to espouse an ``all of the above'' energy
portfolio in his speeches, but fails to present such a balanced
approach in his budget requests. The fiscal year 2014 budget
request, like its predecessors, instead seems more ideological
than practical. For instance, the request makes substantial
cuts to Fossil Energy and Nuclear Energy, this country's most
important energy sources, in order to increase funding for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 53 percent. As
attractive as renewable energy may be, it will only supply a
mere fraction of this country's energy over the next 50 years,
and taxpayer dollars should be invested across the spectrum of
all technologies. The Committee encourages the new leadership
of the Department of Energy to develop an energy policy which
is sound both scientifically and economically. This policy
should support the budget request for fiscal year 2015.
On March 20, 2013, the Committee heard testimony from
representatives of the Department of Energy, Government
Accountability Office, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
regarding a long-standing Committee concern: the Department's
project management challenges and policies. While the
Department has made some improvements in its ability to
responsibly manage large construction projects and the billions
of dollars spent each year at our national laboratories, it is
incumbent on the new Departmental leadership to sustain this
progress. At the same time, the new management structure will
continue to uncover problems that had been hidden for years
under layers of bureaucracy. As those problems are made known,
the Department will have to be prepared to respond to criticism
by showing that it is rapidly responding to the problems it
finds and that its policies will preclude such problems from
being repeated.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION
Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution
states ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law''.
The Committee continues the Department's reprogramming
authority in statute to ensure that the Department carries out
its programs consistent with congressional direction. This
reprogramming authority is established at the program, project,
or activity level, whichever is the most specific included in
the text or table detailing the Committee's recommendation for
the Department of Energy's various accounts. The Committee also
prohibits new starts through the use of reprogramming and
includes other direction to improve public oversight of the
Department's actions.
In addition, the Committee includes a new general provision
applying to the Act that prohibits any elimination or reduction
proposed in a budget request until such proposed change is
enacted or approved pursuant to reprogramming and transfer
guidelines included in this Act.
FINANCIAL REPORTING
The Department continues to request changes to the
congressional budget structure. While the Committee has
supported changes to the budget structure to improve
transparency and provide flexibility in executing funding,
these structural changes can make it difficult to understand
programmatic trends, cause misperceptions, and make it
difficult to conduct an ``apples to apples'' comparison. For
instance, in the Nuclear Energy account, this year's request
proposed to shift funding for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and
Security from Other Defense Activities into the Nuclear Energy
account, while also shifting funding for certain activities
within Radiological Facilities Management out of the Nuclear
Energy account and into NASA's budget. Because of these puts
and takes, the Department presented roughly level funding for
Nuclear Energy, even though the request actually reduced
funding for research and development activities by 17 percent.
Similarly, multiple changes to the Weapons Activities and
Nuclear Nonproliferation accounts, including the transfer of
scope between them, make understanding the impacts of the
budget request difficult. The Committee directs the Department
to consult with the Committee before implementing any changes
to its budget request structure.
In addition, the Committee directs the Department to
continue to provide monthly Financial Balances Reports to the
Committee. The reports should provide, for each program at the
congressional control level as specified in the table in this
report detailing the Committee's recommendation for the
Department's various accounts, the following balances: total
available (prior and current year); unobligated; unobligated
but committed; and obligated, uncosted. Data should be provided
both in summary form and by the fiscal year the funding was
appropriated. Emergency funding, including any unspent American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act balances, should be displayed
separately within the report. This direction shall apply to
future fiscal years unless contradicted by the Committee.
The Committee remains concerned over the lack of
transparency in the Department's use of Program Direction funds
and has specified Program Direction funding in the bill for the
relevant accounts. The Committee directs the Department to
provide a Program Direction Report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. The report
should provide for each program and field activity for the two
previous fiscal years budgeted and expended amounts for
salaries and benefits, travel, support services, and other
related expenses and other relevant categories. This report
should include Program Direction balances in summary form and
by fiscal year.
MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR SPENT FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE
Again this year, the Obama Administration continues its
willful disregard for its legal responsibilities regarding
Yucca Mountain. By unilaterally halting the Yucca Mountain
High-Level Waste Geological Repository, the Administration has
delayed fulfilling its legal requirement to take responsibility
for civilian spent nuclear fuel, increasing the financial
penalties taxpayers must bear. The Department's fiscal year
2012 Financial Report shows the estimated liability our
taxpayers now face is $22,300,000,000, an increase of
$3,200,000,000 from the previous year, and an increase of more
than $7,000,000,000 from 2010. This liability will continue to
grow. In addition, the Department of Energy has no disposition
pathway for high-level defense waste at sites across the
country, presenting the likelihood that the federal government
will have to pay penalties to the states as deadlines for
removal are missed. Finally, the credibility of the federal
government has been further eroded by the blatant political
maneuverings of the Administration to skirt the law and halt
the program.
The fiscal year 2014 request includes a proposal to
implement the Department's Strategy for the Management and
Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste.
This strategy--informed by the Administration's Blue Ribbon
Commission that by its very charter did not examine the
suitability of Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository--is
estimated at $5,600,000,000 over the next ten years. The
strategy also proposes to reform the current funding
arrangement for the Department's nuclear waste fund management
program. The Committee notes that neither the BRC
recommendations nor the Department's proposal has been
considered by Congress, yet the Administration included
$60,000,000 in its fiscal year 2014 request for used nuclear
fuel disposition, including activities necessary solely as a
consequence of the Administration's Yucca Mountain policy. The
recommendation rejects these proposals and makes clear that any
activities funded from the Nuclear Waste Fund must be in
support of Yucca Mountain.
In addition, the recommendation provides $25,000,000 to
support the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Geological
Repository and includes bill language allowing Nuclear Waste
Fund appropriations to be transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in support of Yucca Mountain. The recommendation
also expresses support to local communities who have formally
consented to host Yucca Mountain. The Committee includes this
support in recognition that Nye County, the county that
encompasses the Yucca Mountain area, has given its formal
consent to host Yucca Mountain, yet the Administration blithely
ignores this consent as it pushes ahead on its own ``consent-
based approach''.
The Committee notes that geological repositories will be
needed in addition to Yucca Mountain. If the Congress provides
the authority for such repositories, as well as for a
consensus-based siting process, the Committee will consider
support for such activities at that time. In the meantime, the
bill contains a prohibition on using funds to close the Yucca
Mountain license application or to take actions that would
irrevocably remove Yucca Mountain as an option for a
repository.
PROLIFERATION OF CENTERS
The Committee has for years expressed concern with the
Department's establishment of a variety of new research
centers, or persistent, location-based grantees that receive
funding across a number of years and that often require out-
year commitments subject to appropriations. Examples included
Energy Frontier Research Centers, Energy Innovation Hubs,
BioEnergy Research Centers, Clean Energy Application Centers,
and Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities. This year, the
President added to this list by announcing new ``Innovative
Manufacturing Initiative'' centers. Unfortunately, the
Administration continues to propose these new ideas without
examining, or at least articulating, why existing programs are
inadequate or underperforming. No offsets are offered within
existing programs, and no policy prescriptions are offered. The
Committee continues to support the ongoing review of all
existing research centers and expects frequent and thorough
updates as the Department considers their relative
effectiveness and potential renewal or termination in future
years. The Committee urges the Department to look at its
programs as a portfolio of approaches to achieve results and to
propose eliminating less effective programs and support
mechanisms.
While many of these centers have been proposed openly and
established with congressional concurrence, a number have been
established or renewed over the years without mention in budget
requests, including Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities.
Further, many centers have been funded perennially and lack a
concrete goal after which they would be terminated. This
practice has led to the proliferation of centers across many
Departmental programs consuming program budgets and preventing
prioritization of funds towards other higher-priority
activities. Addressing this problem requires a higher degree of
transparency, evaluation, and prioritization to ensure that the
Department funds only highly-effective centers closely aligned
to program missions.
Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the
Department is directed to submit to the Committee a
comprehensive list of all centers to be funded in fiscal year
2014, including the date of establishment, funding level in
fiscal year 2014, total funding received to date, purpose and
milestones, and expected termination date. Further, future
budget request justifications should explicitly include all
centers and their current and proposed funding levels, expected
out-year commitments, and detail on their programmatic and
technical goals.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The Committee urges the Secretary to take a more aggressive
approach to ensure U.S. innovation benefits the United States.
Each year, the Administration proposes increases for basic
science and applied research and development, but includes
little or no attention to ensuring that the intellectual
property developed by people supported by these funds is used
to further the interests of the United States economy. Not
later than 120 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate on his initiatives
to preserve intellectual property and encourage its use in the
United States, as well as on what authorities are available to
control intellectual property, including the Bayh-Dole Act,
that may help the retention of domestic manufacturing. The
report should describe how the Department uses these
authorities to ensure that its scientific discoveries yield
commercial technologies that are manufactured domestically. In
addition, the Secretary should include in the report specific
recommendations for improving domestic intellectual property
transfer and retention. The Committee urges the Secretary to
identify and enable a specific office in the Department of
Energy to take the lead on advancing retention and utilization
of intellectual property developed through Department of Energy
support.
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and
scholarship programs in fiscal year 2014 unless they were
explicitly included in the budget justification or funded
within this recommendation. Any new or ongoing programs that
the Department wishes to fund in fiscal year 2015 must be
detailed in the fiscal year 2015 budget request documents. This
direction shall be followed in future fiscal years unless
contradicted by the Committee.
Further, the Department is directed to report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate, not later than 90 days after enactment of this
Act, a comprehensive listing of educational activities at the
Department funded with fiscal year 2013 appropriations,
including all fellowships, scholarships, workforce training
programs, and primary and secondary school activities. For each
activity, the report shall include the fiscal year 2013 funding
level, purpose, out-year mortgages, and Department account and
program within which the activity resides. This report shall be
submitted in future fiscal years unless contradicted by the
Committee.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES
The Committee requires the Department to inform the
Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution
and funding is required during the fiscal year. As in the
fiscal year 2012 Act, the Department's reprogramming
requirements are detailed in statute. To assist the Department
in this effort, the following guidance is provided for programs
and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act.
Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation. The
recommendation includes a general provision providing internal
reprogramming authority to the Department, as long as no
program, project, or activity is increased or decreased by more
than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, compared to
the levels in the text or table detailing the Committee's
recommendations for the Department's various accounts. For
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the
reallocation of funds from one construction project to another
project or a change of $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is
less, in the scope of an approved project.
Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if
delay of the project or activity until the next appropriations
year would result in a detrimental impact to an agency program
or priority. A reprogramming may also be considered if the
Department can show that significant cost savings can accrue by
increasing funding for an activity. Mere convenience or
preference should not be factors for consideration. A
reprogramming may not be employed to initiate new programs. No
funds may be added to programs for which funding has been
denied.
Reporting and Approval Procedures.--In recognition of the
security missions of the Department, the legislative guidelines
allow the Secretary and the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration jointly to waive the
reprogramming restriction by certifying to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
that it is in the nation's security interest to do so. The
Department shall not deviate from the levels for activities
specified in the report that are below the level of the detail
table, except through the regular notification procedures of
the Committee. Any reallocation of new or prior-year budget
authority or prior-year de-obligations, or any request to
implement a reorganization that includes moving previous
appropriations between appropriations accounts must be
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate in writing and may not be
implemented prior to approval by the Committees.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy
programs in fiscal year 2014 are described in the following
sections. A detailed funding table is included at the end of
this title.
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. - - -
Budget estimate, 2014................................. - - -
Recommended, 2014**................................... $982,637,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +982,637,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. +982,637,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
**Excludes $157,000,000 in rescissions of prior-year unobligated
balances.
The Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency
account consolidates the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability and the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy within the Department of Energy. This
consolidated office includes programs that conduct research,
development, demonstration, and deployment activities that keep
our nation's energy infrastructure secure, that address the
impact of high gas prices, and that support energy efficiency
and renewable energy, as well as federal energy assistance
programs.
The Committee recommends $982,637,000 for Renewable Energy,
Energy Reliability and Efficiency, $982,637,000 above fiscal
year 2013 and $982,637,000 above the budget request. After
accounting for the new account structure included in this bill,
the recommendation for activities currently funded in two
separate accounts is $970,954,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$1,962,078,000 below the budget request. Title V of this bill
rescinds $157,000,000 of unobligated prior-year balances from
within Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account.
Priorities.--Within limited resources in fiscal year 2014,
the Committee focuses funding on programs that address future
high gas prices and support American manufacturing, two of the
Committee's highest priorities. Funding for these two
priorities comprises two-thirds of all research funding in the
new account, compared to less than half under current levels.
In addition, the recommendation fully supports efforts to
strengthen the resilience and cyber security of our electricity
infrastructure.
The Vehicle Technologies, Bioenergy Technologies, and
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies programs fund activities
that can reduce American exposure to future high oil prices.
Research into cutting-edge technologies that will increase the
gas mileage of gasoline and diesel fuel vehicles--the vast
majority of today's fleet--will allow Americans to spend less
on fuel over the same distance. Research into next-generation
automotive and fuel technologies that power vehicles with
domestic energy sources such as natural gas, electricity,
biofuels, and hydrogen can likewise dramatically lower the
impact of future high gas prices on Americans. The activities
funded within this program, together with the activities funded
elsewhere in the bill to increase electricity production from
domestic coal, gas, and nuclear fuel, form a two-pronged
approach to protecting Americans from future increases of
petroleum-based fuel prices.
The Advanced Manufacturing Program, formerly Industrial
Technologies, will fund activities to help American
manufacturers compete in the global marketplace. Energy costs
are a major contributor to manufacturing costs, and technology
innovations that steeply reduce energy consumption in
industrial and manufacturing processes can give American
manufacturers competitive advantages. Further, the Committee
funds activities throughout all research and development
programs targeted at lowering the manufacturing cost of
emerging energy technologies.
The Committee is concerned that, historically, technology
innovations developed through energy efficiency and renewable
energy research and development ultimately lead to
manufacturing of new or cheaper products overseas. The
Committee cautions the Department against this pitfall and
charges the new program with targeting the Advanced
Manufacturing activities, as well as research and development
across the Department, to ultimately create manufacturing jobs
in the United States.
Reliable and resilient energy infrastructure is vital to
our nation's economy, human health and safety, and national
security, and cyber security has emerged as one of the nation's
most serious grid modernization and infrastructure security
issues. The Cyber Security for Energy Delivery Systems program
develops advanced technologies and cyber security capabilities,
and expands situational awareness to enhance the reliability
and resilience of the nation's energy infrastructure by
reducing the risk of energy disruptions due to cyber events.
Thermal Energy.--The Committee recognizes that thermal
energy accounts for approximately thirty percent of our
national energy consumption and directs the Department to
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate not later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act a report on the programs supporting
thermal energy generation, including across the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors. The report should
specifically identify which mechanisms and programs support
community-scale projects to increase local energy independence,
and identify improvements or new ways the Department of Energy
can partner with the Department of Agriculture to promote
thermal energy market development and community scale projects.
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program
advances technologies and provides operational support to
increase the efficiency, resilience, and security of the
nation's electricity delivery system. The power grid currently
employs aging technologies at a time when power demands,
deployment of new intermittent energy resources, and rising
security threats are imposing new stresses on the system.
Activities within the Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability program aim to develop a modern power grid by
advancing cyber security technologies, intelligent and high-
efficiency grid components, and energy storage systems.
The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability, $32,490,000 below fiscal year
2013 and $61,400,000 below the budget request. Administrative
costs for this program have been incorporated into Program
Direction within the new account.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and
Development.--The Committee recommends $14,000,000 for Clean
Energy Transmission and Reliability, $11,490,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and $18,000,000 below the budget request. Within
available funds, the Department is directed to support research
and development of cost-competitive transmission components
using high-temperature superconducting and ambient-temperature
conducting materials with increased efficiency, capacity,
durability, longevity, and reliability, as well as to examine
the feasibility of ultraconductive copper technology.
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Energy Storage
Research and Development, $15,000,000 below fiscal year 2013
and $10,000,000 below the budget request, and $5,000,000 for
Smart Grid Research and Development, $19,000,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and $9,400,000 below the budget request. Within
available funding, the Committee encourages the Department to
explore grid integration research. The request proposes
$80,000,000 for such activities within the Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy account, but the Department has yet to
sufficiently articulate why the integration of clean energy
technologies into the electricity grid is not more suited to
the Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program
mission.
The Committee recommends no funds for the proposed
Electricity Systems Energy Innovation Hub, $20,000,000 below
the budget request.
The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for cyber security for
energy delivery systems research and development, $10,000,000
above fiscal year 2013 and $2,000,000 above the budget request,
of which $5,000,000 is for the Department to explore the
potential benefits of a test grid capable of conducting full-
scale research, testing, and evaluation of cyber security
effects on the grid, including integration of wireless
technologies and systems. The Department is further directed to
submit to the Committee a prioritized list of current and
potential testing capabilities, including a full-scale test
grid.
National Electricity Delivery.--The Committee recommends
$6,000,000 for National Electricity Delivery, formerly
Permitting, Siting, and Analysis, $1,000,000 below fiscal year
2013 and the same as the request.
Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration.--The
Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this program that secures
the nation's energy infrastructure, $4,000,000 above fiscal
year 2013 and $6,000,000 below the request, to include
$4,000,000 for the proposed Operational Energy and Resilience
(OER) program. The Department is directed to submit a strategic
workforce plan for the OER program to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, should any
of this additional funding be used for staffing purposes.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program includes
research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities
into bioenergy technologies, hydrogen and fuel cells, advanced
manufacturing, geothermal technologies, solar energy, water
power, and wind energy. Energy efficiency activities include
reducing the energy consumption of vehicle, building and
industrial technologies. Federal energy assistance programs
include weatherization assistance, state energy programs, and
tribal energy activities.
The Committee recommends $731,600,000 for energy efficiency
and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and
deployment activities, $766,392,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$1,587,900,000 below the budget request, to include
$390,000,000 for programs that address the impact of high gas
prices and $341,600,000 for research into renewable energy and
energy efficiency.
Bioenergy Technologies.--Along with electric, fuel-cell,
and natural gas vehicles, biofuels grown from non-food crops or
algae are one of the few ways by which the nation can lower its
dependence on imported oil and reduce the impact of future high
gas prices on American families and businesses. Bioenergy
Technologies, formerly Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D,
develops and demonstrates technologies to convert biomass crops
to fuels, chemicals, heat, and power. The Committee recommends
$120,000,000 for this program, $78,804,000 below fiscal year
2013 and $162,000,000 below the budget request.
The Department is directed to continue conducting only
research, development, and demonstration activities advancing
technologies that can produce fuels and electricity from
biomass and crops that could not otherwise be used as food.
Within available funding, the recommendation encourages the
Department to conduct research and development of biofuels from
algae feedstocks.
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 encouraged
to include biosolids derived from the municipal wastewater
treatment process and other similar renewables within the
definition of noncellulosic biomass.
The budget request proposes funding and legislative
language for a joint initiative with the Navy and the
Department of Agriculture to develop commercial diesel and jet
biofuels production capacity for defense purposes. The
Department has not adequately justified why the Department of
Energy should fund this Defense initiative, nor whether the
proposed investments can successfully lower costs to
competitive levels in several years or will only serve to sink
costs into a product that is too immature to compete without
federal support. The recommendation includes no funding for the
proposed initiative and does not include the requested
legislative language.
The recommendation provides no funds for cook stoves
activities, $4,000,000 below the request.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.--The Hydrogen and Fuel
Cell Technologies program advances technologies that use fuel
cells and hydrogen energy carriers for both transportation and
stationary purposes. The Committee recognizes the breakthrough
research, cost reductions, and increased efficiencies and
durability of fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems achieved by
this program that have accelerated the technologies' transition
to market. Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies remain one of
the limited avenues to reduce Americans' exposure to future
high gas prices, and the Committee continues to support
research in this area. The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies, $38,378,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and $35,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee encourages the Department to explore 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, to the extent
possible within available funding.
Vehicle Technologies.--The Vehicle Technologies program
invests in activities to lower the impact of high gas prices on
the nation's drivers through technological advancements that
increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles and the spectrum of
transportation fuels. The Committee recommends $205,000,000 for
Vehicle Technologies, $123,027,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$370,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee encourages the Department to prioritize
funding for Advanced Combustion Engine Research and Development
to increase gas mileage by improving the combustion engine
technologies used in the vast majority of the nation's current
vehicles. Within available funding, the Committee directs the
Department to consult with other federal agencies, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency, to determine the feasibility
for dual-fuel research, development, and demonstration of Class
8 heavy-duty trucks and to report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
its findings not later than 100 days after enactment of this
Act.
As the Department focuses more efforts on developing new
alternative fuels for automotive, power production, and
industrial applications, research is needed to improve the
efficiency and performance of alternative fuels rather than
focusing solely on increased production. Better understanding
of alternative fuel properties, combustion, and fluid dynamics
can assist producers and engine manufacturers in achieving the
clean utilization of alternative fuels. The Committee
encourages the Department to support research that targets
multidisciplinary efforts involving researchers, fuel
producers, and end users to help develop a sustainable fuel
industry from domestic sources.
The recommendation includes $10,100,000, the same as the
request, for the Supertruck program, a cost-shared project with
industry to design a heavy-duty Class 8 truck with 50 percent
improvement in overall freight efficiency. The Committee
encourages the Department to identify further measures to
leverage the success of the current program toward additional
fuel economy gains and to incorporate alternatives to petroleum
fuels in commercial vehicles. The Committee remains supportive
of advancing technologies that will enable the next generation
of vehicles powered by domestically-produced electricity.
The recommendation includes no funding for Alternative Fuel
Vehicle Community Partner Projects, $90,000,000 below the
budget request.
Advanced Manufacturing.--The Advanced Manufacturing
program, formerly the Industrial Technologies program, invests
in research and development to improve the competitiveness of
American manufacturing by increasing the energy efficiency of
manufacturing processes across a variety of industries. Energy
usage is a large contributor to the cost of manufacturing, and
reductions to energy expenditures can significantly lower
manufacturing costs. The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for
advanced manufacturing, $4,693,000 above fiscal year 2013 and
$245,000,000 below the budget request.
The recommendation supports the third year of funding for
the Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub. The constrained
supply of critical materials continues to be a serious concern
for advanced energy, vehicle, and defense technologies. The
Department is encouraged to address the domestic rare earth
supply chain through the Critical Materials Energy Innovation
Hub and other means, including the investigation of cost-
neutral opportunities such as recycling programs.
Within available funds, the recommendation includes not
less than $4,205,000 for improvements in production in the
steel industry and $20,000,000 for combined heat and power
activities relevant to industrial applications and energy
savings in manufacturing processes. The Department is also
encouraged to continue its efforts furthering improvements in
mechanical insulation, an area with the potential to yield
significant energy and cost savings for the industrial,
commercial, and manufacturing sectors.
Building Technologies.--Buildings consume more than 40
percent of the nation's energy and more than 70 percent of the
nation's electrical energy. The Building Technologies program
seeks to save energy by advancing technologies in building
systems and in appliances and devices within them. The
Committee recommends $65,300,000 for Building Technologies,
$153,385,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $234,700,000 below the
request.
The recommendation includes $6,000,000 for small-scale
combined heat and power systems with applications in
residential and small commercial settings and $25,800,000 for
solid state lighting research and development. The Committee
directs the Department to support the Building America program
to the extent possible within available funding. The
recommendation includes no funding for the Better Buildings
Challenge, $9,500,000 below the request.
The Committee directs the Department to work with its
partner agencies, industry, and relevant university programs to
complete a study, not later than eight months after enactment
of this Act, of the potential benefits of a research and
development program to improve the manufacturing of consumer
electronics. The study should include, but not be limited to:
the potential for manufacturing improvements, cost-effective
``smart electronics'' technologies that could further save
consumers money and reduce the energy consumption of consumer
electronics, and an evaluation of research and development
approaches for increasing energy efficiency of consumer
electronics.
The Committee is aware that the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 assigned the Department the role to
develop energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, a
responsibility which had previously been assumed by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The
Committee directs the Department to work closely with HUD,
industry, and tenant groups to ensure that any proposed
standards take equally into account the up-front cost of
housing as well as lifecycle operating costs.
The Committee supports measures in building energy codes
that are cost-effective and demonstrate savings to the
consumer, by using a simple payback methodology over a
prescribed period of time.
Geothermal Technologies.--Ground heat is a potentially
large source of domestic energy that could be broadly tapped
for power generation, heating, and cooling. The Committee
recommends $12,000,000 for geothermal technology, $25,773,000
below fiscal year 2013 and $48,000,000 below the budget
request.
The recommendation includes no funds for the $30,000,000
proposal for Enhanced Geothermal Systems Field Sites. The
Department is encouraged in future budget requests to include
details on out-year commitments.
The United States Geological Survey has identified more
than 120 gigawatts of potential domestic energy from low-
temperature geothermal sources. The Committee directs the
Department to continue supporting a comprehensive program that
will help the nation tap these vast resources and to consider
the full authorized spectrum of geothermal technologies in
order to maximize the use of domestic geothermal energy.
Solar Energy.--The Solar Energy program funds applied
research, development, and demonstration of both photovoltaic
and concentrating solar technologies to reduce the cost of
solar power to economically competitive levels. The Committee
recommends $65,300,000 for Solar Energy, $222,967,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and $291,200,000 below the budget request.
Keeping American manufacturing competitive continues to be
a major priority for the Committee across all technology areas,
and the Committee encourages the Department to prioritize solar
manufacturing initiatives within this program and, to the
extent possible within available funding, to explore cross-
cutting advanced solar films aimed at improving the cost-
effectiveness of solar technologies. The Committee also
supports research and demonstration projects to develop the
needed integrated and smart grids to maximize the use of solar
energy.
Water Power.--The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for
Water Power research and development, $34,647,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and $31,000,000 below the budget request. Within
available funding, the Committee directs $3,600,000 for the
purposes of Section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The
recommendation includes no funding for a deep tank wave test
facility, $10,000,000 below the request, and instead directs
the Department to consult with the Navy about the potential for
joint usage before making another capital investment request.
The Committee commends the Department for its work in
marine and hydrokinetic research, development, and
demonstration, including tidal power.
Wind Energy.--The Wind Energy program supports research and
development to improve the reliability and decrease the cost of
wind power. The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for Wind
Energy, $69,034,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $120,000,000
below the budget request.
The Committee continues to support wind activities with
large generation potential that rely on technology innovations
that would not be developed by the private sector alone. To
this end, the Committee supports an emphasis on offshore wind
technologies significantly more advanced and in deeper water
than those being considered currently by the private sector.
Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$31,000,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure, $4,751,000 above
fiscal year 2013 and $15,000,000 below the budget request,
which includes activities at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL). The Committee supports the Department's
proposal to consolidate all NREL facility operations and
maintenance into a single budgetary line within Facilities and
Infrastructure.
Federal Energy Management Program.--The recommendation
provides no funding for the Federal Energy Management Program,
which seeks to mitigate energy costs of the federal government
by assisting federal agencies in reducing their energy usage.
FEDERAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends a total of $92,111,000 for federal
energy assistance programs, $35,123,000 below fiscal year 2013
and $155,889,000 below the budget request.
Weatherization Assistance.--The Committee recommends
$77,111,000 for the Weatherization Assistance Program,
$9,518,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $106,889,000 below the
request, of which $2,500,000 is for training and technical
assistance.
State Energy Program.--The Committee recommends $12,000,000
for the State Energy Program, $37,701,000 below fiscal year
2013 and $45,000,000 below the request, all for formula grants.
Tribal Energy Activities.--The Committee recommends
$3,000,000 for tribal energy projects, $6,940,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and $4,000,000 below the budget request, to continue
providing assistance to tribes for developing sustainable and
economical energy solutions for their communities.
PROGRAM DIRECTION AND SUPPORT
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $76,926,000
for program direction, $114,098,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$135,689,000 below the budget request, for activities
previously funded separately within the Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability program and the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy program.
Strategic Programs.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000
for Strategic Programs, $22,851,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$34,000,000 below the budget request, to include $2,000,000 for
the U.S.-Israel energy cooperative agreement.
Nuclear Energy
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $759,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 735,460,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 656,389,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -102,611,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -79,071,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
Nuclear power generates approximately one-fifth of the
nation's electricity and will continue to be an important base-
load energy source in the future. The Department of Energy's
Nuclear Energy program invests in research, development, and
demonstration activities that develop the next generation of
clean and safe reactors, further improve the safety of our
current reactor fleet, and contribute to the nation's long-term
leadership in the global nuclear power industry.
The Committee recommends $656,389,000 for Nuclear Energy,
$102,611,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $79,071,000 below the
budget request. Taking into consideration the budget request's
proposed shifts of $94,000,000 for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards
and Security into this account and $50,000,000 for Space and
Defense Infrastructure out of this account and into NASA's
budget, only the latter of which is supported in this
recommendation, the programmatic level for Nuclear Energy is
$38,525,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $14,929,000 above the
budget request.
Use of Prior-Year Balances.--The Department is directed to
use $5,000,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the
request.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee provides $387,329,000 for Nuclear Energy
Research and Development, $59,754,000 below fiscal year 2013
and $14,929,000 above the budget request.
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $66,748,000, $7,191,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$4,448,000 above the request, for this program that supports
the full spectrum of nuclear research across the Department.
The recommendation includes $14,563,000 for the National
Science User Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory and
$24,300,000 for the Modeling and Simulation Energy Innovation
Hub, both the same as the request.
Integrated University Program.--The Committee recommends
$5,500,000 to continue the Integrated University Program, which
is critical to ensuring the nation's nuclear science and
engineering workforce in future years. In addition to providing
support to nuclear science and engineering undergraduate and
graduate programs, the Committee recognizes the importance of
skilled trade craft workers in ensuring the safe and reliable
construction and maintenance of the nation's nuclear fleet.
Therefore, within the amounts provided, the Department shall
investigate the current state of the nuclear trade craft
workforce in the both the civilian and government nuclear
sectors; projected changes in the workforce due to retirements
and competition from other sectors; scope and implementation of
craft training and apprenticeship programs; and opportunities
to expand the breadth and quality of workforce training
programs. The Department shall report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than July 2014 on its findings.
Small Modular Reactor Licensing Support Programs.--The
recommendation provides $110,000,000 for SMR Licensing Support
Programs, $43,842,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $40,000,000
above the request, to include $85,000,000 for the SMR Licensing
Technical Support Program and $25,000,000 for the SMR Design
Certification Program.
The Committee notes the Department of Energy has modified
the original criteria under which the SMR Licensing Technical
Support Program was approved by the Congress. The original
program called for $452,000,000 over five years for two awards
of SMR designs, each of which was to have a utility partner to
be eligible and a target commercialization date of 2022. At the
end of these five years, the awardee would have a completed
design certification and its utility partner a completed
combined license or construction permit and operating license
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct and
operate the SMR design. Under these terms, the Department made
one award. The recommendation provides $85,000,000 to keep that
award on track for $226,000,000 over five years.
In fiscal year 2013, the Department has proposed a second
funding opportunity with different criteria for at least one,
but potentially two, SMR designs. The new award supports a more
innovative technology demonstration, extends the program to six
years, removes the eligibility requirement of a utility
partner, and pushes the target commercialization date to 2025,
plus or minus two years. At the end of the six-year program for
this award, the technology vendor would have a design
certification from the NRC, but not necessarily a combined
license for a utility partner to construct and operate the new
design. The recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the second
award, the same as the budget request.
Of the funds previously made available under the SMR
Licensing Technical Support Program prior to fiscal year 2014,
$30,000,000 shall be available to the SMR Design Certification
Program. Furthermore, should the Administration select two SMR
designs for the second funding opportunity, the Committee
encourages the Department to submit adequate budget requests to
fully support both designs in future fiscal years.
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and
Demonstration.--The Committee recommends $86,500,000 for this
program, $27,591,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $14,000,000
above the budget request. The recommendation includes
$20,000,000 for Small Modular Reactor Advanced Concepts
Research and Development and $21,500,000 for Light Water
Reactor Sustainability, both the same as the request. The
recommendation provides $45,000,000 for Advanced Reactor
Concepts, $14,000,000 above the request, to include $30,000,000
for research of the fuel and graphite qualification program for
the High Temperature Gas Reactor, which was funded under the
Next Generation Nuclear Plant line in previous budgets.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee
recommends $91,081,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development,
$93,915,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $74,019,000 below the
request. The recommendation includes no funding to implement
the Department's proposed Strategy for the Management and
Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste
for storage, transportation, disposal, and strategic activities
of used nuclear fuel disposition activities, some of which
would only be necessary as a consequence of the
Administration's Yucca Mountain policy. Since Congress has not
made any changes to the authorized plan of record, which
continues to be Yucca Mountain, no funding is provided for the
requested activities.
Yucca Mountain.--The recommendation provides $25,000,000 to
support the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Geological
Repository and recognize local communities who have formally
consented to host it.
International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.--The Committee
recommends $2,500,000 for International Nuclear Energy
Cooperation, $462,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as
the budget request.
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Radiological Facilities Management program maintains
safe and effective operation of the critical infrastructure
that provides radioisotope power systems production
capabilities for defense and space agency users. These outside
users fund the Department's operational, production, and
research activities on a reimbursable basis. The Committee
recommends $5,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management,
$64,009,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request. The recommendation supports the proposed relocation of
the Space and Defense Infrastructure activity into NASA's
budget.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $181,560,000 for Idaho Facilities
Management, $28,508,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as
the request. In order to provide levels for energy research and
development comparable across technologies, the recommendation
for Nuclear Energy does not include the proposed shift of Idaho
Sitewide Safeguards and Security from Other Defense Activities.
However, the Committee does not object to this approach in
concept.
Construction.--The recommendation includes $16,398,000, the
same as the request, for design and construction of the Remote-
Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project, a joint project with
Naval Reactors.
The Committee continues to fund operations of the Idaho
National Laboratories National Science User Facility within
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies, as proposed in the budget
request and adopted by the Congress in fiscal year 2012.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommends $87,500,000 for Program Direction,
$2,356,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $534,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 420,575,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 450,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -84,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. +29,425,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
Fossil energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural
gas, provide approximately 82 percent of all energy used by the
nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for
the majority of our needs for the foreseeable future. The
Fossil Energy Research and Development program funds research,
development, and demonstration activities to improve existing
technologies and develop next-generation systems in the full
spectrum of fossil energy areas. At a time when fossil fuel
power generation is expanding around the globe and gas prices
continue at high levels, the activities funded within this
program advance our nation's position as a leader in fossil
energy technologies and ensure that we use the full extent of
our vast domestic resources safely and efficiently.
The Committee recommends $450,000,000 for Fossil Energy
Research and Development, $84,000,000 below fiscal year 2013
and $29,425,000 above the budget request.
Once again, the budget request proposes to focus funding
within Fossil Energy Research and Development on carbon capture
and sequestration technologies and projects. This focus
underemphasizes two areas critical to our nation's energy
future: the efficient use of existing fossil energy resources
and the full, safe, and responsible use of untapped domestic
resources. The Committee recommendation increases funding in
these areas to improve the efficiency of power generation and
to bolster efforts that can help protect Americans from future
high gasoline and diesel prices. Technological advances in
these areas also will help American industry compete in the
booming global marketplace for fossil energy technologies.
The Committee notes that the Department of Energy's
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is a critical
resource for the nation as it continues to expand the use and
exploration of natural gas and other domestic fuel resources.
The Committee believes the Department should continue to
utilize the experience and expertise of NETL in these critical
and growing research fields.
Use of Prior-Year Balances.--The Department is directed to
use $8,700,000 of prior-year balances, as proposed in the
budget request.
Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other
Petroleum Research Fund.--The recommendation does not include
the proposed legislative repeal of this fund and its programs.
Natural Gas Export Applications.--The Committee is
concerned about the process and backlog at the Department of
Energy for considering pending applications for natural gas
export. Under current Department processes, the application for
export to free trade agreement (FTA) countries is handled
quickly and without objection. However, the Department's
handling of export applications to non-FTA countries has been
prone to lengthy delays, with only two applications approved to
date. The Committee notes that multiple applications have been
pending at the Department for more than two years, and that the
Department has not identified a plan to expeditiously process
the remaining applications for export to non-FTA countries. The
Committee supports a clearly communicated, timely process to
make an appropriate determination on each of the pending
applications at the Department and directs the Secretary to
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, not later than 30 days after
enactment of this Act, its plan to finish consideration of all
applications filed with the Department.
COAL--CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS
The Committee recommends $315,856,000 for Carbon Capture
and Sequestration (CCS) and Power Systems, $52,753,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and $39,225,000 above the budget request.
Funds made available for Carbon Capture, Carbon Storage,
and Advanced Energy Systems shall be available to advance the
full scope of technologies for the reduction of carbon
emissions conducted at the 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.
Carbon Capture.--The Committee recommends $68,938,000 for
Carbon Capture, the same as fiscal year 2013 and $43,062,000
below the budget request. The recommendation includes no
funding for a Natural Gas Capture Prize.
Carbon Storage.--The Committee recommends $79,295,000 for
Carbon Storage, $36,182,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$18,200,000 above the budget request, to include $7,500,000 for
additional support of enhanced oil recovery technologies and
projects, which can advance American industry and clean fossil
energy power generation while increasing domestic oil
production, and $40,495,000 for Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnerships.
Advanced Energy Systems.--The Committee recommends
$91,687,000 for Advanced Energy Systems, $8,313,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and $43,687,000 above the budget request. Of
this amount, the recommendation includes $25,000,000,
$25,000,000 above the request, to continue the Department's
research, development, and demonstration of solid oxide fuel
cell systems. These systems have the potential to increase
substantially the efficiency of clean coal power generation
systems, to create new opportunities for the efficient use of
natural gas, and to contribute significantly to the development
of alternative-fuel vehicles.
Within available funds, the recommendation includes
$5,000,000 for coal-biomass to liquids activities, which seek
to produce liquid fuels from blends of domestic coal and
biomass resources with reduced emissions and land and water use
through the integration of carbon capture and other
technologies.
The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for High Performance
Materials within Advanced Combustion Systems and $8,000,000
within Gasification Systems to continue activities improving
advanced air separation technologies.
Cross Cutting Research.--The Committee recommends
$30,925,000 for cross cutting research, $18,238,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and $10,400,000 above the budget request. The
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for efforts associated with
high temperature materials under the Advanced Ultra Super
Critical Program to identify, test, qualify, and develop
domestic suppliers capable of producing components from these
materials.
NETL Coal Research and Development.--The Committee
recommends $45,011,000, $9,980,000 above fiscal year 2013 and
$10,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes that
this program was funded within Program Direction prior to
fiscal year 2012. The Department is directed to continue
including in the budget request all full-time equivalent
employee information within this program, as it does under
Program Direction.
The recommendation includes $10,000,000 to perform an
assessment and analysis of the feasibility of economically
recovering rare earth elements from coal and coal byproduct
streams, such as fly ash, coal refuse, and aqueous effluents.
The Department is directed to report its findings and, if
determined feasible, to outline a multi-year research and
development program for recovering rare earth elements from
coal and coal byproduct streams to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $7,200,000 for Natural Gas
Technologies, $7,800,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $9,800,000
below the budget request. Of this amount, the recommendation
includes $5,000,000 for research into the cost-effective and
responsible extraction of methane hydrates, a vast and
currently inaccessible resource whose total energy reserves
rival those from all other known fossil fuels combined, and
$2,200,000 for the Department to continue the Risk Based Data
Management System.
The recommendation provides no new funding for the proposed
joint research effort with the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Department of the Interior into hydraulic fracturing
technologies, $12,000,000 below the budget request. The
Committee notes the Department allocated $10,000,000 for this
effort in fiscal year 2013 under the continuing resolution,
despite no funding being allocated by the Environmental
Protection Agency and significantly reduced funding being
allocated by the United States Geological Survey. For fiscal
year 2014, the Committee directs the Department to utilize
these existing funds for this collaborative effort and further
directs that no funds, whether prior or new, may be obligated
until the Department submits a finalized interagency research
plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommends $115,753,000 for Program
Direction, $4,247,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as
the budget request. The Committee notes that the recommendation
also provides funding within CCS and Power Systems for NETL
Coal Research and Development, an activity funded within
Program Direction prior to fiscal year 2012.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $14,909,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 20,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 14,909,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... ---
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -5,091,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve
the national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900's,
and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 1996 required the sale of the Government's interest
in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR-1). To comply with this
requirement, the Elk Hills field in California was sold to
Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of
Elk Hills, the transfer of the oil shale reserves, and transfer
of administrative jurisdiction and environmental remediation of
the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 (NPR-2) to the Department of the
Interior, the Department retains one Naval Petroleum Reserve
property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR-3) in Wyoming
(Teapot Dome field). This is a stripper well oil field that the
Department has maintained while it remained economically
productive.
The fiscal year 2014 budget request proposes to accelerate
environmental remediation responsibilities of NPR-1. As in
fiscal year 2013, it also focuses on implementation of a
disposition plan for NPR-3 still being developed with
production facilities remaining operational as long as
economically viable. The budget request does not include
funding for management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing
Center (RMOTC) at NPR-3, proposing to allow only projects with
fully reimbursable arrangements or fully funded by the
Department's Geothermal Technology Program.
The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval
petroleum and oil shale reserves is $14,909,000, the same as
fiscal year 2013 and $5,091,000 below the budget request. Since
development of the NPR-3 disposition plan continues to drag on,
the Committee expects the Department to provide a final plan to
the Committee for review prior to taking steps to implement the
plan.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $192,704,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 189,400,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 189,400,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -3,304,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. ---
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to
store petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a
major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry
out obligations under the international energy program. The
capacity of the Reserve is 727 million barrels. The current
inventory is 696 million barrels or approximately 93 days of
net import protection for the United States economy.
Operational activities, however, will leave approximately 70
million barrels unavailable for drawdown, thereby reducing the
U.S. net import protection to 85 days. Additionally, damage at
one storage tank reduces the drawdown rate to 4.25 million
barrels per day from 4.4 million barrels per day.
The Committee recommendation for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve is $189,400,000, $3,304,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
the same as the budget request.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $4,119,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 8,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 8,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +3,881,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. ---
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the
Northeast began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy,
through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded
contracts for the lease of commercial storage facilities and
acquisition of heating oil. The purpose of the reserve is to
assure home heating oil supplies for the Northeastern States
during times of very low inventories and significant threats to
the immediate supply of heating oil. The Northeast Heating Oil
Reserve was established as a separate entity from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The reserve contains one
million barrels of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), with
approximately one-half located in commercial facilities in
Boston, Massachusetts and approximately one-half located in
commercial facilities in Groton, Connecticut.
In late 2012, over 121,000 barrels of the NEHHOR's
inventory was loaned to the Department of Defense in support of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency for use in emergency
operations and support to the region affected by Hurricane
Sandy. Additional exchanges with commercial terminals provided
diesel fuel supplies for the state of Connecticut and the New
York City, New York, area. All ULSD was returned to the NEHHOR
by April 2013.
The Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating
Oil Reserve is $8,000,000, $2,119,000 below fiscal year 2013
(after accounting for a rescission of $6,000,000 of prior-year
balances in fiscal year 2013) and the same as the budget
request.
Energy Information Administration
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $105,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 117,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 100,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -17,000,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-
independent agency within the Department of Energy established
to provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related
information to the Congress, the executive branch, state
governments, industry, and the public. The Committee recommends
$100,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration,
$5,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $17,000,000 below the
budget request.
The Committee recognizes that the Commercial Buildings
Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data are critical to the
building industry. The 2003 CBECS remains the most current
survey of commercial building efficiency. CBECS data are used
in the development of ASHRAE building energy efficiency
standards, the Energy Star program at U.S. EPA, the U.S. Green
Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design program, and Green Globes. To the extent possible within
available funding, the Committee encourages the Energy
Information Administration to complete the current CBEC survey
and publish the results as soon as practical.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $235,721,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 212,956,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 194,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -41,721,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -18,956,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program includes
funds to manage and cleanup sites used for civilian, energy
research, and non-defense related activities. These past
activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste
contamination that requires remediation, stabilization, or some
other action. The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup is $194,000,000, $41,721,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and $18,956,000 below the budget request.
Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $48,233,000 for
Small Sites, $19,197,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $1,956,000
below the budget request. Within this amount, $40,000,000 is
provided to accelerate removal of uranium mill tailings at
Moab, $4,222,000 above the budget request. The Department
provided a report on its small sites cleanup activities in July
2012 that showed significant progress has been made at Argonne,
Brookhaven, SLAC National Accelerator, and Lawrence Berkeley in
recent years. However, the Department could not show that there
had been comparative progress made at the Southwest
Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor (SEFOR) located at the
University of Arkansas. The Department also did not provide a
detailed action plan for cleanup as directed. Within funding
for Small Sites, $2,000,000 is provided to develop an updated
cost estimate for an accelerated phased cleanup plan that makes
further progress for the decontamination and decommissioning of
SEFOR.
West Valley Demonstration Project.--The Committee
recommends $47,000,000 for West Valley cleanup, $18,000,000
below fiscal year 2013 and $17,000,000 below the budget
request. The recommended level is reduced from the request in
order to address cleanup activities at other sites which
represent a higher risk to health and the environment.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $472,930,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 554,823,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 545,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +72,070,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -9,823,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to pay
for the cleanup of gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth,
Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and the East Tennessee Technology
Park, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee recommends
$545,000,000 for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, $72,070,000 above
fiscal year 2013 and $9,823,000 below the budget request. The
amounts specified for each site include funding requested for
pension and community and regulatory support. The Committee has
no need to establish separate reprogramming controls for
pension and community and regulatory support as in the budget
request.
Oak Ridge.--The Committee recommends $186,167,000,
$14,689,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $9,103,000 above the
budget request. The Committee commends the Department for its
recent progress on demolition of the K-25 Building. The
Department reports it is now ahead of schedule on this massive
cleanup project that has been plagued by past performance
problems and tragedy. The recommendation supports completion of
K-25, but defers the request to initiate new decontamination
and decommissioning activities on the adjacent K-27 Building in
order to accelerate other higher risk cleanup activities at the
site.
Paducah.--The Committee recommends $265,220,000 for
Paducah, $183,413,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $3,163,000
above the budget request. The recommendation fully funds the
transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plant from the United
States Enrichment Corporation to the Department of Energy.
Portsmouth.--The Committee recommends $93,613,000 for
Portsmouth, $96,654,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $1,795,000
above the budget request.
Title X of the 1992 Act authorized use of a portion of the
fund to reimburse private licensees for the federal
government's share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and
thorium processing sites. The Department reports $32,756,000 in
approved but unpaid claim balances and up to $241,495,000 in
remaining potential liability for cleanup activities important
to the health and safety of a number of communities. The
Department should consider where progress can be made for site
remediation and clean-up work at residential sites, public
school properties, and other sensitive locations.
Science
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $4,876,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 5,152,752,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 4,653,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -223,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -499,752,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Office of Science funds basic science research across
national laboratories, universities, and other research
institutions in support of American innovation and the
Department's energy-focused missions. Through research in
physics, biology, chemistry, and other science disciplines,
these activities expand scientific understanding and secure the
nation's leadership in energy innovation. The Office of Science
funds a significant portion of science research nationwide.
The Science program office includes Advanced Scientific
Computing Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and
Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy
Physics, Nuclear Physics, Workforce Development for Teachers
and Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Safeguards
and Security, and Science Program Direction. The Committee has
placed a high priority on funding these activities within the
limited resources available in fiscal year 2014. The private
sector is not likely to invest in basic science, since the
findings either have high non-commercial value or are not
likely to be commercialized in the near or medium term.
However, this work is very important to sustaining the
scientific leadership of the United States and can provide the
underpinnings for valuable intellectual property in the coming
decades.
The Committee recommendation is $4,653,000,000 for the
Office of Science, $223,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$499,752,000 below the budget request.
The Committee is concerned about the long-term science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce pipeline
development for underrepresented minorities and notes the
National Academies recommendation that the federal government
offer support for undergraduate and graduate STEM programs
focused on increasing the participation and success of minority
students through engaged mentoring, enriching research
experiences, and opportunities to publish, present, and
network.
Further, the Committee encourages the Department to develop
and broaden partnerships with minority serving institutions,
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
In particular, the Committee encourages programs involving
undergraduate research experiences, high speed computing access
and education, nonproliferation studies, and research inclusive
of the social sciences. The Committee recognizes the importance
of workplace diversity in the Department of Energy's National
Laboratories and directs the Secretary of Energy, not later
than 120 days after enactment of this Act, to provide a
detailed plan on recruitment and retention of diverse talent
that includes outreach and recruitment programs at HBCUs and
other Minority Serving Institutions.
Use of Prior-Year Balances.--The recommendation includes
the use of $10,000,000 of prior-year balances, $10,000,000 more
than the request.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program
develops and hosts some of the world's fastest computing and
network capabilities to enable science and energy modeling,
simulation, and research. The Committee recommends $432,365,000
for Advanced Scientific Computing Research, $8,460,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and $33,228,000 below the budget request.
Exascale Computing.--The Committee continues to support the
exascale initiative, which seeks to develop the next generation
of computing systems three orders of magnitude faster than
today's fastest systems. This decade-long effort is critical to
enabling basic and energy-focused science research not
previously possible and to maintaining the nation's global
leadership in computing technologies. The recommendation
includes the requested level of $68,580,000 for the exascale
initiative.
High Performance Computing and Network Facilities.--In
addition to the long-term exascale initiative, the Committee
supports continued upgrade and operation of the Leadership
Computing Facilities at Argonne and Oak Ridge National
Laboratories and of High Performance Production Computing
capabilities at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These
systems' capabilities are a critical component of science and
industrial research and development across the nation, and they
should be maintained as world-leading facilities. The
recommendation includes $148,500,000 for Leadership Computing
Facilities and $62,000,000 for High Performance Production
Computing.
The recommendation includes the requested level of
$32,608,000 for High Performance Network Facilities and
Testbeds (ESnet).
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The Basic Energy Sciences program funds basic research in
materials science, chemistry, geoscience, and bioscience. The
science breakthroughs in this program enable a broad array of
innovations in energy technologies and other industries
critical to American economic competitiveness. The Committee
recommends $1,583,099,000 for Basic Energy Sciences,
$106,396,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $279,312,000 below the
budget request.
The program's budget consists of funding for research; the
operation of existing user facilities; and the design,
procurement, and construction of new facilities and equipment.
The long-term success of the program hinges on striking a
careful balance among these three areas. However, the
increasing level of research commitments and completion of new
facilities make it difficult to adequately fund all three
components of the Basic Energy Sciences program within existing
budgetary constraints. The Committee strongly cautions the
Department against assuming an ever-increasing budget when
planning the balance among facility runtime, construction, and
research funding.
The Committee recognizes the critical contribution that the
program's light sources, neutron sources, and other user
facilities make to scientific discovery and American industry.
The United States is currently host to the world's most
advanced and productive basic energy science user facilities,
and the Department is urged to develop a plan for the next
generation of light sources and other user facilities in order
to maintain American leadership through the next decade.
Research.--The Committee recommends $1,509,299,000 for
Research within Basic Energy Sciences, $29,199,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and $231,812,000 below the budget request.
The recommendation includes $24,237,000 for the fourth year
of the Fuels from Sunlight Energy Innovation Hub and
$24,237,000 for the second year of the Batteries Energy
Innovation Hub, both the same as the request. The
recommendation does not include funding for the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, $8,520,000 below the
budget request.
The recommendation includes not less than $60,000,000 for
Energy Frontier Research Centers in fiscal year 2014,
$40,000,000 below the request, but does not provide $68,729,000
for one-time funding for additional Energy Frontier Research
Centers as requested by the Department.
The recommendation provides $64,200,000 for major items of
equipment, to include $39,200,000 for the Advanced Photon
Source Upgrade and $25,000,000 for the National Synchotron
Light Source II (NSLS-II) Experimental Tools, both the same as
the budget request.
The recommendation provides $775,003,000 for facilities
operations, which includes funding for individual scientific
user facilities at their finalized fiscal year 2013 operating
levels and $50,000,000 for NSLS-II early operations,
$29,053,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $19,000,000 below the
budget request.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $73,800,000 for
Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, $77,197,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and $47,500,000 below the budget request. The
recommendation includes the first year of construction funding
for the LINAC Coherent Light Source II two-tunnel upgrade
project.
The Committee is aware of the Department's Critical
Decision-0 that establishes the Department's mission need for a
novel free-electron laser array light source. Should it choose
to move forward with this project, the Office of Science is
directed to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate on how it
intends to balance these project costs against BES research and
facility runtime under a flat budget scenario.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
The Biological and Environmental Research program supports
advances in energy technologies and related science through
research into complex biological and environmental systems. The
Committee recommends $494,106,000 for Biological and
Environmental Research, $116,090,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$131,241,000 below the budget request.
The Committee continues to support the Biological Systems
Science program, which focuses on the biology of plants and
microbes with the ultimate goal of enabling future generations
of biofuels from a variety of sustainable domestic biomass
sources. In addition to reducing our nation's dependence on
petroleum-based fuels with chronically high prices, the
biofuels produced through this program's science breakthroughs
can lower the cost of, improve the sustainability of, and ease
industry's transition to those fuel alternatives.
The recommendation includes $75,000,000, the same as fiscal
year 2013 and the budget request, for the second year of the
second five-year term of the three BioEnergy Research Centers.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports basic research
and experimentation aiming to harness nuclear fusion for energy
production. The Committee recommends $506,076,000 for fusion
energy sciences, $104,968,000 above fiscal year 2013 and
$47,752,000 above the budget request.
The domestic fusion program is a critical component of
United States science leadership and a necessary building block
of any successful fusion projects, including the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The recommendation
provides $288,576,000 for the domestic fusion program,
$8,601,000 below fiscal year 2012--the last time Congress set
forth a domestic fusion budget--and $55,252,000 above the
request, of which $22,260,000 is for operations and research at
the Alcator C-Mod Facility at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in fiscal year 2014.
The recommendation includes $217,500,000 for the United
States contribution to ITER, the international collaboration to
construct the world's first self-sustaining experimental fusion
reactor, $93,500,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $7,500,000
below the budget request.
Ten-Year Fusion Plan.--ITER is an important international
collaboration that represents a major step forward in fusion
energy science, but its funding requirements will create
substantial budgetary challenges, throughout the decade. The
Committee appreciates that the Office of Science is grappling
with these challenges, but notes that the budget request does
not strike the proper balance between the domestic fusion
program and ITER. The Committee recommendation restores most of
the proposed cuts to the domestic fusion program while also
increasing ITER funding as the project enters its full
construction phase.
Looking forward, the increasing requirements for ITER will
continue to pose challenges within the Science budget, and the
Committee believes that long-term policy decisions for the
Fusion Energy Sciences should be guided by impartial analysis
of scientific needs and opportunities and with an eye on
American competitiveness and leadership. The Committee
therefore reiterates the importance of the ten-year plan for
Fusion Energy Sciences directed in the fiscal year 2012
appropriations conference report; that plan's timely delivery
to Congress; and the inclusion of priorities across domestic
and international fusion facilities, projects, and programs. As
the Administration formulates this plan, the Committee notes
that the level of funding for fusion should not be assumed to
be flat. As the Department continues to assert, ITER is one of
the top priorities of the nation's science program as a whole,
and as such should require investments across all programs
within science. The current estimated cost share for the U.S.
portion of the project is $2,400,000,000 to achieve first
plasma, with additional funding required to operate and
maintain the facility over its lifespan. With this significant
investment, our nation must maintain a robust domestic program
and expertise to benefit from the project's eventual operation.
ITER Project Directive.--The Committee is deeply concerned
about the lack of transparency regarding the U.S. contribution
to the ITER project, particularly given the scale and
complexity of the project as it enters its full construction
phase. The Department has yet to submit an ITER project data
sheet, including a project baseline and cost schedule, both of
which are instrumental to the Committee's oversight role and
consistent with all other DOE line-item construction projects.
The Committee strongly encourages the Department to treat the
U.S. contribution to ITER as a line-item construction project
and directs the Department to submit a project baseline and
cost schedule to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
The High Energy Physics program supports fundamental
research into the elementary constituents of matter and energy,
and ultimately into the nature of space and time. The program
focuses on particle physics theory and experimentation in three
areas: the energy frontier, which investigates new particles
and fundamental forces through high-energy experimentation; the
intensity frontier, which focuses on rare events to better
understand our fundamental model of the universe's elementary
constituents; and the cosmic frontier, which investigates the
nature of the universe and its form of matter and energy on
cosmic scales. The Committee recommends $772,521,000 for High
Energy Physics, $17,074,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$4,000,000 below the budget request.
Research.--The Committee recommends $729,521,000 for
Research, $32,148,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $12,000,000
below the budget request, which includes activities in proton,
electron, non-accelerator, and theoretical physics. The
recommendation includes $12,000,000 for operations of the
Sanford Underground Research Facility, $2,000,000 above the
request, as the Department continues to evaluate a path forward
for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) and its
alternatives.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $43,000,000 for
construction, $15,074,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $8,000,000
above the budget request. The recommendation includes
$35,000,000 for preliminary engineering design and construction
of the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment.
The recommendation also includes $8,000,000 for project
engineering and design activities of LBNE and its alternatives,
$8,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation
includes no funding for long-lead procurements or construction
activities for the LBNE project. The Committee recognizes the
importance of this project to maintaining American leadership
in the intensity frontier and to basic science discovery of
neutrino and standard model physics. However, the Committee
also recognizes that LBNE construction must be affordable under
a flat budget scenario. As such, the Committee supports the
Office of Science's challenge to the High Energy Physics
community to identify an LBNE construction approach that avoids
large out-year funding spikes or to identify viable
alternatives with similar scientific benefits at significantly
lower cost.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
The Committee recommends $551,913,000 for Nuclear Physics,
$3,376,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $18,025,000 below the
request.
Operations and Maintenance.--The Committee recommends
$526,413,000 for nuclear physics operations and maintenance,
$27,743,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $18,025,000 below the
budget request. The recommendation fully funds the request for
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider Operations at $165,224,000 to
support a standalone run of approximately 22 weeks in fiscal
year 2014.
The recommendation also includes $55,000,000 to begin
construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB),
$33,000,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request. FRIB will serve as a facility with world-leading
capabilities for short-lived radioactive beams and remains one
of the highest priorities within the Nuclear Physics program.
The Committee remains supportive of the next-generation machine
that will advance understanding of rare nuclear isotopes and
the evolution of the cosmos by testing the limits of nuclear
existence.
The Committee encourages the Office of Science to ensure
that commercial isotope producers have a direct working
relationship with user facilities on day-to-day operational
matters as it continues its effort to coordinate isotope
production activities across the DOE complex.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $25,500,000,
$24,367,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request, to continue construction of the 12 GeV Upgrade of the
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS
The Committee recommends $16,500,000 for workforce
development for teachers and scientists, $1,951,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. The
Committee notes that the budget request proposes to consolidate
STEM education programs under education-oriented agencies--a
move the Committee is still evaluating--but the Office of
Science Graduate Fellowship program was not included in the
consolidation. The Committee directs the Department to consult
with the National Science Foundation about lack of funding for
this program and to report its findings not later than 60 days
after enactment of this Act to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommends $46,558,000 for Science
Laboratories Infrastructure, $64,945,000 below fiscal year 2013
and $51,260,000 below the budget request. For construction, the
recommendation provides only the estimated level of funding
that can be executed within fiscal year 2014 for the three
projects proposed in the budget request.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommends $85,000,000 to meet safeguards and
security requirements at Office of Science facilities,
$3,218,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $2,000,000 below the
budget request.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommends $174,862,000 for Science Program
Direction, $9,646,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $18,438,000
below the budget request. This level of funding is equal to the
Department's finalized operating plan in fiscal year 2013.
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $265,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 379,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 50,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -215,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -329,000,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E)
supports research aimed at rapidly developing energy
technologies whose development and commercialization are too
risky to attract sufficient private sector investment, but that
are capable of significantly changing the energy sector to
address our critical economic and energy security challenges.
Projects funded by ARPA-E include such wide-ranging areas as
production processes for transportation fuel alternatives that
can reduce our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling
technologies with exceptionally high energy efficiency, and
improvements in petroleum refining processes. While the
Committee remains supportive of ARPA-E's efforts for
stimulating innovation and appreciative of the reforms it has
fostered at the Department, limited resources available in
fiscal year 2014 constrain the amount available for this
program. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Advanced
Research Projects Agency--Energy, $215,000,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and $329,000,000 below the budget request. The
Department shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 30
days after enactment of this Act on its needs for program
direction funding within this amount.
The Committee is pleased with ARPA-E's increased focus on
transportation technologies and urges the program to continue
supporting research and development that can make a substantial
difference to the impact of future high gas prices on American
families and businesses.
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 48,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 22,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -16,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -26,000,000
OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $-38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. -22,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... -22,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +16,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. - - -
Budget estimate, 2014................................. $26,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... - - -
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -26,000,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The budget request for the Loan Guarantee program includes
administrative expenses of $48,000,000, which are partially
offset by fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) of the
Energy Policy Act. The Committee recommends administrative
expenses of $22,000,000, which are fully offset by fees
collected, for a final net appropriation of $0. Funding for
administrative expenses has been limited to the amount
projected to be collected in fees, which the Congressional
Budget Office has estimated to fall due to a reduction in the
throughput of loan guarantee actions in fiscal year 2014.
The recommendation includes language prohibiting the
Department from subordinating U.S. interests in any loan
guarantee in violation of existing law or regulation. In
addition, the Committee expects the Department to provide
quarterly updates to the Committee on the health of its
existing portfolio.
The Committee is aware of discrepancies between public
statements made by the Department of Energy regarding the
status of loan guarantee applications and the understanding by
the applicants of the status of their applications. Not later
than 60 days following enactment of this Act, the Department
shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate including the
following information:
(1) The number of applicants originally selected by
DOE to proceed under Loan Guarantee Solicitation Number
DE-FOA-0000008, the dollar amount requested in loan
guarantee authority by each project, and the stage of
the application consideration process for each
applicant;
(2) A clear explanation of DOE's classification of
stages of the application consideration process and
DOE's use of an ``inactive'' designation in regard to
an applicant during any of the stages; and
(3) Whether White House approval is involved at any
stage of the approval process other than the required
OMB review of the credit subsidy cost and, if so, which
office of the White House and the nature of the
approval.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 6,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 6,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
established a direct loan program to support the development of
advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the
United States. The program provides loans to automobile and
automobile part manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping,
expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the
United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or
qualified components, and for associated engineering
integration costs.
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, the same as
fiscal year 2013 and the budget request. The funds provided
support administrative operations only.
The Committee notes that the Department of Energy closed
its most recent loan in March 2011, and has zero active
applications for the $4,200,000,000 in remaining credit subsidy
appropriations. The Committee directs the Department to submit
a plan for this program to best use limited taxpayer funding to
best support American competitiveness and innovation including,
if appropriate, a request to rescind funding.
Departmental Administration
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $237,623,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 226,580,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 187,863,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -49,760,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -38,717,000
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $-108,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. -108,188,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... -108,188,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -188,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $129,623,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 118,392,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 79,675,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -49,948,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -38,717,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Committee recommendation for Departmental
Administration is $187,863,000, $49,760,000 below fiscal year
2013 and $38,717,000 below the budget request. The
recommendation for revenues is $108,188,000 as requested,
resulting in a net appropriation of $79,675,000. Funding
recommended for Departmental Administration provides for
general management and program support functions benefiting all
elements of the Department of Energy, including the National
Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array
of Headquarters activities not directly associated with the
execution of specific programs.
Idle Reduction Strategies.--The Committee is aware that the
Department owns or operates more than 14,000 vehicles,
including mission critical Light-Duty trucks, passenger vans,
Medium-Duty, and Heavy-Duty vehicles. While the Committee is
aware of the Department's broader plans, it is most interested
in strategies that develop petroleum reduction and
corresponding emissions reductions in an affordable and cost
effective way. The Committee is aware that idle reduction
strategies and technologies currently being utilized by the
private sector may offer a net cost savings to the end user and
directs the Department's Sustainability Performance Office to
provide the Committee with a report no later than 90 days after
enactment of this Act on the potential benefits, cost
effectiveness, and role of idle reduction in its Performance
Plan for its fleet vehicles in the operation and performance of
DOE's vehicle fleet.
Office of the Secretary.--The recommendation includes
$4,986,000, $22,000 below the budget request.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.--The recommendation
includes $50,104,000 for the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, $1,100,000 below the budget request, and moves travel-
related activities to the Office of Management.
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.--The
recommendation includes $4,000,000, $700,000 below the request.
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.--The Committee
recommends $3,000,000 for this office, $494,000 above the
budget request, to coordinate and implement energy management,
conservation, education, and delivery systems for Native
Americans.
Office of Economic Impact and Diversity.--The Committee
recommends $1,600,000 for Minority Economic Impact, $500,000
above the budget request. The recommendation also includes
$6,197,000 for Program Direction, $850,000 below the budget
request, and moves the Ombudsman to the Office of Management.
Office of Human Capital.--The recommendation includes
$20,815,000 for the Office of Human Capital, $3,673,000 below
the budget request.
Office of Management.--The Committee recommends $49,294,000
for the Office of Management, $6,405,000 below the budget
request, and shifts activities from the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer and the Office of Economic Impact and
Diversity.
Office of Policy and International Affairs.--The Committee
recommends no funding for this office. The Committee is aware
that program offices at DOE also conduct international
activities, and that the Department of State is now fulfilling
some diplomatic functions this office once performed. The
Committee supports efforts to consolidate strategic policy
analysis capabilities within a single office at the Department
of Energy.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 42,120,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 42,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -120,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performs agency-wide
audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and
correct management and administrative deficiencies that create
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste,
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and
operations. The investigative function provides for the
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities
involving programs, personnel and operations.
The Committee recommendation is $42,000,000, the same as
fiscal year 2013 and $120,000 below the budget request.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the
Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security
Administration consist of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the
Administrator; outside of the NNSA, these include Defense
Environmental Management and Other Defense Activities.
Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S.
national security through the military application of nuclear
technology and reducing the global danger from the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National
Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency
within the Department, carries out these responsibilities.
Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, the NNSA is
responsible for the management and operation of the nation's
nuclear weapons complex, naval reactors, and nuclear
nonproliferation activities. The Office of the NNSA
Administrator oversees all NNSA programs.
Contract and Project Management Reforms.--The Committee
recognizes the considerable reforms that have been implemented
to better understand the cost of NNSA programs, to improve
project management, and to hold contractors more accountable
for performance by enforcing existing contract options and
using contract mechanisms that more evenly share risk between
the federal government and its contractors. These fundamental
contract and management reforms have been sorely needed and
will give NNSA managers tools that are critical for effective
federal oversight. The Committee notes that progress has been
made, recognized by the removal of some of the NNSA's projects
from the Government Accountability Office's annual high-risk
list. However, the NNSA will only be able to prove it can
competently manage its operations through continued and
consistent application of these management tools. As senior
leadership changes within the Department and the NNSA, the
Committee stresses the importance of continuing and
accelerating the pace of management reform not just to prevent
waste of taxpayer funds, but also to ensure that the NNSA is
able to ultimately achieve its mission.
Security Reforms.--The Committee encourages continued
reform and management improvements that will ensure the NNSA is
able to meet high performance standards for physical protection
of special nuclear materials. In particular, the Committee
supports efforts to develop security expertise within the NNSA
federal workforce and to empower those federal managers to take
ownership of their roles and responsibilities for ensuring the
overall effectiveness of security at the NNSA sites. While
reforms to date have focused on improving the identification of
security deficiencies, the Committee is concerned that the NNSA
has still not demonstrated it is able to take prompt corrective
action after it has identified those deficiencies.
Additionally, there are still considerable problems with
maintaining security systems and managing projects to upgrade
those systems. The NNSA is currently overseeing two major
security upgrades which have been severely mismanaged and which
have directly impacted security effectiveness at those sites.
The botched security project at the Y-12 National Security
Complex directly contributed to the poor response by protective
forces during the security incursion in July 2012 by generating
excessive nuisance alarms. Additional protective forces have
had to make up for an extended degraded status of the security
systems at Los Alamos National Laboratory after the contractor
incorrectly installed the new system and work was abruptly
halted in October to prevent an Anti-Deficiency Act violation.
The NNSA must demonstrate its federal managers can competently
oversee projects without degrading security performance as it
makes the investments it needs to maintain its systems.
Additional Actions to Address Security of Nuclear
Materials.--While some limited reform actions have begun and
show promise, the sheer magnitude of the problems that are
pervasive in the NNSA's federal oversight culture make it
essential that the Administrator and the Secretary work
together to perform a concerted, high-level management review
of the security of special nuclear materials. These issues will
take years to address if the NNSA relies only on its current
set of identified reforms, and the Committee is not content
with a protracted timescale.
There is already a loss of exigency for reform as
leadership turns over. The previous Secretary of Energy
appointed three experts to undertake a review of security
management, but none of the reforms recommended by his experts
have been implemented. The DOE Inspector General has
recommended a re-evaluation of the current structure of the
Department's physical security apparatus that places all
options on the table, but no such re-evaluation has taken
place. The Department must consider all options, including new
contract mechanisms and federalization of the security
workforce, to drive wholesale near-term improvements in how it
ensures the effectiveness of security at its sites. Contrary to
previous assumptions that federalization would drive up costs,
new analysis from the DOE Inspector General suggests there may
actually be cost savings associated with federalization. While
the Committee does not advocate federalization at this point,
it should be an option that is considered. The Committee
directs the NNSA, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy,
to conduct a comprehensive review of available options for more
fundamental security management reform and to provide a report
on its review to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act. In its report, the NNSA should include a
comparison of the cost, benefits, effectiveness, timeline to
implement, and feasibility of implementation for a variety of
alternatives, to include federalization and new contracting
mechanisms.
Program Efficiencies.--The NNSA request assumed more than
$300,000,000 in program ``efficiencies'' that must be realized
to allow the NNSA to attain its objectives for fiscal year
2014, but did not provide any information on how it would
achieve these efficiencies and the impact to NNSA goals if they
are not realized. The Committee agrees that there are actions
that the NNSA could take to reduce unnecessary administrative
and overhead costs. In order to help achieve these savings, the
recommendation includes a provision that limits Laboratory-
Directed Research and Development (LDRD) for all Department of
Energy laboratories to 4.5 percent in fiscal year 2014 and
thereafter. This limitation will effectively serve to bring
funding for LDRD at the national security labs to the same
percentage amount as those provided for other DOE labs and
should free as much as $100,000,000 to be used for stockpile
work.
Tritium and Enriched Uranium Management.--The NNSA has yet
to provide the Committee with a report that outlines how it
will manage tritium and enriched uranium supplies to fully meet
all stockpile needs. As a result, the bill contains a statutory
reporting requirement to ensure that the NNSA meets this
outstanding requirement.
Pensions.--The Committee remains concerned about the
continually escalating costs of contractor pensions and other
postretirement benefits and their impacts on programmatic
activities. The fiscal year 2014 request for legacy contractor
pensions is $373,300,000, an increase of $132,477,000, or 55
percent, over fiscal year 2013. From the additional information
provided in the budget request, it is clear that benefits
offered to contractor employees vary widely across the nuclear
security enterprise and the NNSA has adopted a limited and
piecemeal approach to reform. The Committee supports continued
review of pension and other postretirement benefits offered to
contractor employees and the expeditious implementation of fair
reforms to ensure rising costs do not impact ongoing high
priority programmatic activities. Given that many of the site
operating contracts will be re-competed or renewed in the
coming years, the NNSA should evaluate what contract mechanisms
are appropriate and available to bring uniformity and certainty
to contractor pensions and post-retirement benefits moving
forward.
The Committee recommends $11,266,000,000 for the NNSA,
$235,644,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $386,469,000 below the
budget request. After accounting for the rescissions in title
V, the recommendation includes $11,104,000,000 for the NNSA,
$397,644,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $548,469,000 below the
budget request.
Weapons Activities
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $7,577,341,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 7,868,409,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 7,675,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +97,659,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -193,409,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety,
security, reliability, and performance of the nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile. The activities funded under this
appropriation include the maintenance and refurbishment of
nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their security,
safety, and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium
and arms reduction treaties. The Committee recommends a fiscal
year 2014 program level of $7,675,000,000 for Weapons
Activities, $97,659,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $193,409,000
below the budget request. After accounting for the rescission
of $142,000,000 in title V of this bill, the recommendation for
net budget authority is $7,533,000,000, $44,341,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and $335,409,000 below the budget request.
Overall Funding Levels.--The recommendation approves the
NNSA's request to provide funding for Nuclear Incident Response
and the Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation programs
within funding for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, instead of
within Weapons Activities as in fiscal year 2013. After
accounting for this transfer, the recommended program level
(including stockpile work, campaigns, infrastructure, security
and other activities) is $361,001,000 above fiscal year 2013.
Within the overall level, the Committee's recommendation fully
funds the increases necessary to support the core requirements
to ensure the reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons
stockpile, but limits the amount of funding available to
explore new stockpile concepts. The recommendation also takes
advantage of significant savings that are available from prior-
year funds that can no longer be executed to meet deficit
reduction needs. With the high costs associated with extending
the life of the W76, B61, and W88 and constructing the Uranium
Processing Facility, the Committee cannot support large
increases for activities that are not required for stockpile
sustainment and must find savings that are available for
deficit reduction where they will not impact progress of those
high priority activities.
Stockpile Transformation.--In January 2013, the Nuclear
Weapons Council made a decision that its ``3+2'' strategy (3
ballistic missile warheads and 2 air delivered warheads) will
serve as the long-term vision for the stockpile. Since then,
the NNSA has provided little explanation or analysis on the
force structure implications or the costs to achieve that
strategy.
In addition, the strategy relies on the NNSA's ability to
prove it can reliably certify a new warhead design and to
produce 30 pits per year by 2021, a condensed timeline that
will require significant capital investments for which the NNSA
has not provided an executable plan. The Committee will not
support dedicating significant funding for new stockpile
transformation concepts unless the Administration can more
clearly lay out its rationale and the NNSA can prove that it is
taking a conservative approach that accounts for all costs, is
executable in the timeframes needed, is technically feasible,
and has demonstrable benefits that justify such a large
investment.
Acquisition Program Improvements.--The bill contains a
general provision which requires an analysis of alternatives be
prepared for all major warhead refurbishment activities. This
requirement is established to strengthen the joint Department
of Energy-Department of Defense phase 6.x process and to better
conform to the Department of Defense's major acquisition
process. That process entails, among other requirements, that a
suitable number of feasible alternatives are analyzed prior to
making costly investment decisions, that a trade-off analysis
of the costs and benefits has been performed, and that the
alternative selected has been certified to be affordable. This
supporting information will provide a analytical basis for the
NNSA's claims that its budget request contains funding for only
the best possible programs, in a rational, defensible manner,
considerate of the risk and uncertainty.
Certification of New LEP Concepts.--The Committee is
concerned that new design concepts being considered do not have
a sound scientific and analytical basis to ensure those
warheads can be certified. Further, surety and maintainability
improvements may introduce unnecessary risk into systems that
must be highly reliable and whose performance cannot be
verified through nuclear testing. In order to ensure that the
NNSA has a sound technical basis for warhead upgrades that
include insertion of new surety improvements and pit
production, the Committee directs the NNSA to work with the
JASONs defense advisory group to provide a report not later
than 180 days after enactment of this Act on the need to
incorporate insensitive high explosives into future life
extensions, the certification risks of using and replacing
conventional and insensitive high explosives in remanufactured
and reuse pits, and the maturity of the NNSA's ability to
remanufacture and certify legacy pits in future life extension
reuse applications.
Production Capabilities.--The recommendation includes
increases to address inadequate funding in the budget request
for the W76 and B61 Life Extension Programs (LEP),
dismantlement, and production support. These gaps are further
examples of the NNSA's troubling history of insufficiently
planning for its ongoing production requirements. The NNSA was
never able to achieve the production rates it had planned for
the W76 LEP, and now its support for the program continues to
wane as it cuts overall production amounts. Pantex has
experienced unexpected maintenance needs that have slowed
production during 2013 and will be implementing a new resource
planning system which may cause the NNSA to miss some of its
planned deliverables for the year. The NNSA is also
transitioning its Kansas City operations to its new facility,
which will add even more risk to its ability to stay on track
with its production requirements. While considerable time is
being spent exploring new stockpile management concepts, there
are very real challenges to the enterprise that require focused
attention of leadership to overcome. Meeting the ongoing
production deliverables for the stockpile represents the
highest priority for the Committee. The NNSA must demonstrate
sustained performance in meeting its deliverables before it
will have sufficient credibility to gain support for new
stewardship concepts for the nuclear weapons stockpile.
Nuclear Programs.--The NNSA requested to fund some
activities under a new Government and Performance Results Act
(GPRA) unit called Nuclear Programs, despite the fact that it
did not identify any new performance measures associated with
those activities. This new GPRA unit was presumably proposed,
in part, to align funding as the NNSA reorganizes management
within the Office of Defense Programs and the Office of
Infrastructure and Operations. The Committee has selectively
funded the activities requested under Nuclear Programs using
the existing budget structure. The Committee does not require
additional funding controls for these activities, and the
NNSA's internal reorganization may be carried out using
existing budget lines. However, there is a standing need to
improve the visibility and justification for new investments
within the NNSA budget request. The Committee will consider
changing the congressional budget structure for the purposes of
improving transparency of the full cost of operations through
consolidation, achieving operational efficiencies, or reducing
waste, but not for bureaucratic reorganizations and not for new
funding lines that are poorly justified. The Committee's
recommendation simplifies budgeting controls to permit
flexibility in carrying out activities, while requiring more
detail in the NNSA's budget request justification materials to
enhance the transparency of how the NNSA intends to use its
funding.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK
Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including
maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification,
dismantlement, and disposal activities. The Committee
recommends $2,718,409,000 for Directed Stockpile Work (DSW),
$602,474,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $289,893,000 above the
budget request. The Committee recommendation includes tritium
production; manufacturing development for warhead components
and life extension programs (LEPs); and, for the first time,
funding for processing, storing, and planning for nuclear, high
explosive and other stockpile materials since these activities
are directly related to stockpile production activities.
B61 Life Extension Program (LEP).--The Committee recommends
$560,744,000, $23,700,000 above the budget request, in order to
address a funding gap in the request compared to the B61
Weapons Design Cost Report (WDCR) that was associated with
unspecified program efficiencies. The NNSA must have a solid
basis for reductions it proposes to the validated cost profile,
with a clear explanation for how those changes will impact the
cost and schedule for that LEP. The WDCR identified another
$811,000,000 that would eventually be needed to support the B61
LEP, but did not adequately identify where those activities
would be funded in the budget request or provide a valid
rationale for why they should not be considered part of the
cost of the B61 LEP. In order to ensure full funding, the
recommendation includes $67,000,000 requested under Component
Manufacturing Development to directly support the B61 LEP.
The Committee expects the NNSA to improve the quality of
the information provided and the frequency of reporting to
establish that it has adequately planned to meet its
requirements. The NNSA has selected an expensive alternative to
extend the life of the B61 in order to improve maintainability
by reducing the number of weapon mods, but has not provided any
analysis of the costs and benefits for that selection as
required by the reporting requirements for early life extension
activities set in fiscal year 2012. The high cost of the B61
LEP will continue to drive near-term budgetary requirements and
will limit funding available for follow-on LEP activities.
Since the B61 LEP has recently obtained its phase 6.3
milestone, the bill contains a provision that requires
submission of a report on alternatives and certification of the
affordability of the alternative selected. While the NNSA
prepares this required information, refurbishment work must
move forward expeditiously to meet U.S. commitments to NATO. An
investigation by the GAO completed in 2011 concluded that NNSA
could not ensure it would be able to maintain U.S. capability
to support its NATO commitments if the B61 program were further
delayed. Not meeting those commitments could cast doubts on the
U.S. resolve to maintain a nuclear umbrella for its allies,
potentially unraveling decades of nonproliferation efforts. In
light of current events including the growing missile threat
from North Korea, sending such a message would be dangerous and
irresponsible.
W76 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$248,454,000, $13,072,000 above the budget request. The budget
request continues to inadequately fund activities that are
essential to meet production needs of the W76. In addition, the
budget request proposes changes to the production schedule for
the W76 that would reduce the overall number of W76's well
below the New START treaty levels. However, the Administration
has not explained how those lower numbers would affect the
deterrence capabilities of the most survivable leg of the U.S.
nuclear deterrent. In addition, the NNSA request for the W76
continues to bank on cost efficiencies that the DOE Inspector
General has reported are unlikely to be realized. The Committee
will continue to prioritize ongoing production within its
recommendation to meet existing commitments.
W78 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$50,000,000, $22,691,000 below the budget request. The
recommendation provides funding to continue a study to extend
the life of the W78 warhead, as opposed to the budget request
to discontinue funding for the broader study and to initiate a
W78/88-1 Life Extension Program.
On April 21, 2011, the Department notified the Committee of
its intent to use $26,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 funding to
``initiate the Concept Assessment Study for the W78 Life
Extension Program . . . and to expand the scope of the study to
include exploration of a joint W78/W88 warhead.'' In fiscal
year 2012, the Committee provided another $37,087,000 to
advance the life extension study into phase 6.2. The production
of an integrated warhead to replace the W78 represents one
alternative for sustaining the role of the W78. The
recommendation permits continued consideration of an integrated
warhead, but only as part of a continued study of alternatives.
The NNSA has a standing requirement to provide a preliminary
estimate of the costs and schedule requirements, description of
alternatives, and a technology maturation plan upon entry into
Phase 6.2a of the study. The bill contains a general provision
which requires the NNSA to provide a report and a certification
for the W78 at the Phase 6.3 milestone. To meet this
requirement, the NNSA should ensure its study work continues to
consider an appropriate and diverse set of alternatives as it
carries out its ongoing Phase 6.2/6.2a work.
W88 Alt 370.--The Committee recommends $169,487,000, the
same as the budget request. This funding will support a
$1,500,000,000 alteration to replace the arming, fusing; and
firing assembly of the W88-0/Mk 5, which is in its third decade
of life and requires action to address aging issues.
Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $454,488,000,
the same as the budget request. The NNSA may conduct conceptual
study activities within stockpile systems to explore concepts
for extending the life of the stockpile, subject to meeting the
standing reporting requirements for early life extension
activities as directed by the Committee in fiscal year 2012. If
the NNSA wishes to commence a 6.2 study or perform further
development in support of an integrated warhead or life
extension study for the W80, it must formally request funding
for a new life extension program in a future year budget
request.
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.--The Committee
recommends $55,264,000, $6,000,000 above the budget request.
The NNSA continues to cut funding for dismantlement, despite a
clear requirement to continue to dismantle warheads, sustain
production line capacity, and harvest materials for recycling
to meet stockpile needs. The Committee will not support further
reductions to dismantlement funding unless the NNSA
demonstrates it will meet its overall commitments for
dismantlement and provides a severely overdue production plan.
Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends
$1,179,972,000, $262,222,000 above fiscal year 2013 and
$269,812,000 above the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes select funding requested under
Readiness Campaign and Nuclear Programs that is directly
associated with stockpile production.
The NNSA needs to make considerable improvements in its
cost estimating and planning capabilities that support its
major stockpile acquisition activities. The Committee
recommendation reduces funding requested for Research and
Development Certification and Management, Technology and
Production since the NNSA has not clearly demonstrated why such
a large increase is needed to meet ongoing annual assessment
and certification needs of the stockpile. The NNSA should not
fund new development, including maturation of surety, use
control, or other technology upgrades under consideration for
insertion as part of life extensions within Stockpile Services,
but should clearly account for those costs within funding for
that life extension program or refurbishment activity.
Production Support.--The Committee recommends $345,000,000,
$4,531,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $23,584,000 above the
budget request. The recommendation includes additional funding
above the request to address gaps in maintenance funding for
the W76. No funding is provided for infrastructure upgrades to
support new production capabilities for future LEPs since that
funding is provided separately within Readiness in Technical
Base and Facilities.
Research and Development and Program Readiness Support.--
The Committee recommends $93,608,000 within a new combined
reporting and reprogramming control. The recommendation
combines the full amount requested for Research and Development
Support and the full amount requested for Program Readiness
within Nuclear Programs. The Committee does not require
separate reprogramming controls for planning, training,
personnel, and other Defense Programs support-type activities.
Combined funding will permit more integrated management of
these related activities, and the NNSA should eliminate
duplication and seek further efficiencies where possible.
Plutonium Sustainment.--The Committee recommends
$138,000,000, $2,070,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $18,949,000
below the budget request, for sustainment of plutonium
production capabilities and to reconstitute capabilities to
manufacture power sources.
Tritium Readiness.--The Committee recommends $80,000,000,
$11,695,000 below the amount requested for Tritium Readiness
within the Readiness Campaign. The recommendation does not
provide funding to fuel reactors at the Tennessee Valley
Authority that are not actively being used for tritium
production.
Component Manufacturing Development.--The Committee
recommends $67,000,000, $39,085,000 below the amount requested
for Component Manufacturing Development within the Readiness
Campaign. The Committee recommendation provides a separate
funding line to develop stockpile manufacturing technologies
and processes for the B61 LEP primarily to ensure that the B61
LEP is fully funded, but the NNSA's justification for the
remaining activities in the request is vague.
Material Processing and Storage.--The Committee recommends
$165,231,000. The recommendation combines the full amounts
requested for Material Recycle and Recovery and Storage within
Nuclear Programs. No funding is provided to begin stockpiling
and processing additional plutonium at Los Alamos. The
plutonium facilities at Los Alamos are in need of seismic
upgrades, and there is an outstanding recommendation from the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board that indicates the NNSA
should take all measures to limit or reduce the amount of
nuclear material at risk at Los Alamos until it completes those
upgrades.
CAMPAIGNS
Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons
laboratories, the Nevada National Security Site, the weapons
production plants, and selected external organizations to
address critical capabilities needed to achieve program
objectives. For Campaigns, the Committee recommends
$1,626,099,000, $66,062,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$84,866,000 below the budget request.
Science Campaign.--The Committee recommends $397,902,000,
the same as the budget request. The recommendation supports a
substantial increase for a robust experimental effort to better
understand the properties of plutonium and to ensure the NNSA
can support pit certification requirements for future LEPs.
Engineering Campaign.--The Committee recommends
$149,911,000, the same as the budget request.
Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign.--The
Committee recommends $513,957,000, $112,914,000 above the
budget request. Within these funds, $66,000,000 is for the
OMEGA Laser Facility at the University of Rochester. Also
within these funds, $329,000,000 is provided for operation of
the National Ignition Facility (NIF). The NNSA requested
$113,000,000 for NIF operations within its request for Site
Stewardship. The recommendation consolidates total funding for
NIF facility operations within Campaigns, consistent with how
facility operations are funded for Z, OMEGA, and the scientific
computing facilities. The NNSA is directed to budget for NIF
operations in future budget requests in one location within
Campaigns in order to provide better transparency into the
total costs of operating the facility.
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.--The Committee
recommends $564,329,000, the same as the budget request. The
Committee strongly supports the advancement of computing
capabilities within the NNSA's ASC campaign since these
resources are essential to maintaining the stockpile. However,
funding is reduced from the fiscal year 2013 level to account
for savings that are available due to completion of Sequoia at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the existence of
$40,000,000 in prior-year balances.
Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends no funding to
continue work under the Readiness Campaign. The production of
tritium and other production support activities requested
within the Readiness Campaign are instead provided under
Directed Stockpile Work since those activities directly support
stockpile production needs.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) provides
funding for the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization
of NNSA facilities and infrastructure. The Committee recommends
$1,909,674,000 for RTBF, $234,596,000 below fiscal year 2013
and $1,909,674,000 above the budget request. The Committee
continues funding for the NNSA's infrastructure operations and
construction within RTBF as in fiscal year 2013 and prior
years, instead of within funding for Site Stewardship as in the
budget request. In the past, the NNSA has failed to adequately
fund facility maintenance and recapitalization needs, and the
recommendation includes funding above the request within
maintenance and repair of facilities to address these historic
shortfalls. The recommendation no longer includes funding for
Program Readiness, Material Recycle and Recovery, Containers,
Storage and the National Ignition Facility as in fiscal year
2013.
Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends
$984,455,000, $984,455,000 above the budget request. The
recommendation fully funds the request for facility operations
as requested within Site Stewardship, except for $113,000,000
for the operation of the National Ignition Facility which is
provided within the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield
Campaign.
Maintenance and Repair of Facilities.--The Committee
recommends $247,591,000 within a new reporting and
reprogramming control, $247,591,000 above the budget request.
Within this amount, $8,000,000 is provided for the Roof Asset
Management Program. The recommended level provides $20,000,000
above the request for direct maintenance, as requested within
Site Stewardship, to address chronic underfunding of production
facilities maintenance at Y-12, Pantex, and other sites.
Funding within Maintenance and Repair of Facilities is intended
to be used exclusively for maintenance, risk reduction,
surveillance, sustainment, and corrective and routine
preventative maintenance activities. The NNSA is directed to
provide funding site splits within its budget request
justification for Maintenance and Repair of Facilities in
future years.
Recapitalization.--The Committee recommends $208,173,000
within a new reporting and reprogramming control, $208,173,000
above the budget request. The recommended level fully funds the
NNSA's request for recapitalization, as requested within Site
Stewardship. Funding within Recapitalization is intended to be
used for capital investments that help maintain or improve
infrastructure at the NNSA sites, including: line-item
construction Other Project Costs; general plant and capital
asset operating and other minor construction projects for
expansion, renovation, or replacement projects of existing
facilities; demolition and disposition; and, purchases of major
items of equipment. To the maximum extent possible, the NNSA
should manage its recapitalization activities through the
delineation of distinct projects which have a clearly defined
scope, cost, and schedule basis. No funding shall be available
until the NNSA provides the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate with an accounting of
each project or major item of equipment to be funded that
includes a description of that project's total estimated cost,
fiscal year 2014 costs or multi-year cost profile if
incrementally funded, and the scheduled completion date for
each project or major item of equipment. The NNSA is directed
to provide these elements at a minimum within its budget
request justification for Recapitalization in future years.
Production Capability Investments.--The Committee
recommends $28,000,000 within a new reporting and reprogramming
control, $28,000,000 above the budget request. Funding within
Production Capability Investments is intended to be used for
capital investments to enhance, replace or add new capabilities
that are needed to directly support future stockpile production
requirements including any investments needed to increase pit
production capacity or capability. The NNSA has lost production
capabilities that will be needed to meet future production
requirements for LEPs and other refurbishments. Though it is
not yet clear when and which capabilities will be needed, it is
nevertheless essential that the NNSA begin making some
concerted investments now to ensure that the infrastructure
will be sufficiently responsive. In doing so, the NNSA must
demonstrate that those investments are affordable, effectively
managed, and meet all statutory reporting requirements for
capital projects.
The NNSA may fund new investments requested under Nuclear
Programs, except no funding shall be available until the NNSA
provides the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate with an accounting of each
project or major item of equipment to be funded that includes a
description of that project's total estimated cost, fiscal year
2014 costs or multi-year cost profile if incrementally funded,
and the scheduled completion date for each project or major
item of equipment. The NNSA is directed to provide these
elements at a minimum within its budget request justification
for Production Capability Investments in future years. All
production upgrade projects that are required to meet
production schedules for a major refurbishment or LEP should be
clearly identified as a first-user investment in the associated
Selected Acquisition Report.
Project 07-D-220, Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment
Facility (RLWTF), Los Alamos National Laboratory.--The
Committee recommends $47,614,000 to construct the Low Level
Waste Liquid Facility under the RLWTF project, the same amount
as requested within Nuclear Programs. No funding shall be
available for construction until the NNSA establishes a
performance baseline for the project and provides the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate with an updated project data sheet. The Low
Level Liquid Waste Facility is a like-for-like replacement of
the capability currently provided in the existing RLWTF. The
Committee recommends separate funding for a follow-on
subproject to construct a Transuranic Liquid Waste Facility
that was requested within the RLWTF project.
Project 07-D-220-04 Transuranic Liquid Waste Facility, Los
Alamos National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends
$10,605,000 for project engineering and design, the same amount
as requested under the RLWTF project within Nuclear Programs.
Project 06-D-141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y-12
National Security Complex.--The Committee recommends
$325,835,000, the same amount as requested within Nuclear
Programs. No funding shall be available for site preparation or
facility construction until the NNSA achieves 90 percent design
completion for the entire project. The Committee is concerned
by the steep escalation in costs to complete design of the
facility and the impacts to the overall cost of constructing
the facility. The NNSA reports the cost to complete project
engineering and design activities has grown from $566,192,000
in fiscal year 2013 to $1,164,000,000 in fiscal year 2014,
though some of these costs may be associated with long-lead
procurements. The NNSA is expected to provide considerably more
detail on its plan to construct this facility as it awards the
CD-2 milestone in the third quarter of fiscal year 2104. The
NNSA should provide notification to the Committee if it is
unable to meet its commitment to baseline the entire project
scope in fiscal year 2014.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
The Office of Secure Transportation Asset provides for the
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the
United States. The Committee recommends $219,190,000, $121,000
above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request.
SITE STEWARDSHIP
Site Stewardship provides funding for several supporting
activities that are better served by enterprise-wide federal
management and includes funding for Long-Term Stewardship
(formerly Environmental Projects and Operations), Nuclear
Materials Integration, Containers, Minority Serving Institution
Partnerships Program, Corporate Project Management, and Nuclear
Criticality and Safety Research and Development. The Committee
recommends $154,788,000 for Site Stewardship, $75,659,000 above
fiscal year 2013 and $1,551,219,000 below the budget request.
No funding is provided for the Energy Modernization and
Investment Program. The Committee does not require separate
reprogramming funding controls to support these activities. The
reduction below the request is due to continued funding of
infrastructure under Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities. The NNSA should not request funding for site
facility operations, maintenance, or recapitalization within
Site Stewardship.
Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program.--The
Committee recommends $14,531,000, the same as the budget
request. The Committee is encouraged by new strides within the
NNSA to foster increased diversity in the science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) pipeline which serves our national
security workforce. The Committee applauds the NNSA for
specifying dedicated funding within its Weapons Activities
request for the Minority Serving Institution Partnership
Program (MSIPP). Funding for this program has been dwindling in
recent years, and separately identifying funding will ensure
the program is fully sustained and supported. The Committee
supports these educational and research partnerships and
encourages additional partnerships to be developed with
minority serving institutions, including historically black
colleges and universities, to ensure diversity within the next
generation of scientists and researchers.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY
Defense Nuclear Security is responsible for developing and
implementing security programs for the protection, control, and
accountability of materials and for the physical security of
the nuclear security enterprise. The Committee recommends
$664,981,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, $29,080,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. Reductions
from the fiscal year 2013 level are available, in part, from
savings associated with the removal of special nuclear
materials from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The
recommendation does not provide funding requested to start work
on a new major security systems upgrade for the Device Assembly
Facility at the Nevada National Security Site. The
recommendation defers new work while the NNSA makes further
progress on addressing the known deficiencies at Y-12 and Los
Alamos, ensures similar mistakes will not be made during the
Device Assembly Facility upgrade, and implements its plans for
reorganization.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CYBER SECURITY
Information Technology and Cyber Security combines funding
for Cyber Security with funding to maintain the NNSA's
unclassified information technology systems, previously funded
under the Office of the Administrator. Combined funding was
requested under a single program line, NNSA CIO Activities,
which has been renamed to more clearly describe the purposes
for which the funds may be used. The Committee recommends
$150,000,000 for Information Technology and Cyber Security,
$1,559,000 above the budget request.
The NNSA must maintain a robust capability to combat
sophisticated cyber security attacks against its computer
systems. However, the budget request contained obvious funding
gaps and banked an unspecified amount for vaguely described
program efficiencies which could undermine the cyber security
posture of the NNSA systems. Additional funding above the
request is provided to address gaps identified at Nevada and
other NNSA sites.
LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS
The Committee provides $279,597,000 for payments into the
legacy University of California contractor employee defined
benefit pension plans, $94,597,000 above fiscal year 2013 and
the same as the budget request.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
Use of prior-year balances.--As requested, the Committee
directs the use of $47,738,000 in prior-year balances to offset
the fiscal year 2014 needs as described above. These balances
are available due to lower than anticipated payments for
pensions in fiscal year 2012.
Rescission.--In title V of the bill, the Committee rescinds
$120,000,000 in prior-year balances from the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement project. The NNSA has announced
a five-year delay in constructing the Nuclear Facility and is
unable to reprogram prior-year funding, so these funds are
available to offset costs in fiscal year 2014. The Committee
further rescinds $16,500,000 from Secure Transportation Asset
that is available since the NNSA will not purchase a
replacement aircraft for which funds were appropriated in
fiscal year 2012, and $5,500,000 that is available from
completion of the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $2,434,303,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 2,140,142,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 2,100,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -334,303,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -40,142,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation includes funding for
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development,
Nonproliferation and International Security, International
Material Protection and Cooperation, Fissile Materials
Disposition, Global Threat Reduction Initiative, Nuclear
Incident Response, and Nuclear Counterterrorism and
Counterproliferation. The Committee's recommendation for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $2,100,000,000,
$334,303,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $40,142,000 below the
budget request. After accounting for the rescission of
$20,000,000 in title V of this bill, the recommendation for net
budget authority is $354,303,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$60,142,000 below the budget request.
Overall Funding Levels.--The recommendation approves the
NNSA's request to provide funding for Nuclear Incident Response
and the Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation programs
within funding for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, instead of
within Weapons Activities as in fiscal year 2013. After
accounting for this transfer, the recommended program level is
$579,303,000 below fiscal year 2013. The Committee
recommendation does not continue direct funding for a domestic
uranium enrichment demonstration project, $110,000,000 below
fiscal year 2013. Instead, the final installment of funding is
provided via special reprogramming authority. The Committee's
recommendation takes into account substantial savings that are
available as the NNSA nears completion of its four-year effort
to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world. In
addition, the United States and the Russian Federation have
agreed upon a new framework to permit continuation of several
areas of cooperation in Russia that were previously conducted
under the now-expired Cooperative Threat Reduction umbrella
agreement. The Committee encourages the NNSA to clarify its
strategy to continue its international threat reduction
activities, which have had strong bipartisan support in
Congress. In order to ensure continuity of these activities as
the program evolves, the recommendation provides an additional
$20,000,000 above the request for international material
protection and removal activities within the Global Threat
Reduction Initiative.
Nuclear Forensics.--The NNSA has taken a positive step by
consolidating its nuclear incident response and
counterterrorism and counterproliferation activities within the
budget request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. The
responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Operations and the
Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation are
inherently aligned with the responsibilities of the Office of
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and should not be considered
part of the funding required to maintain the nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile. By integrating fiscal planning and
execution, the NNSA can improve overall integration of what are
clearly cooperative and complementary programs. However, the
NNSA must still improve the way it shares responsibilities for
developing a national nuclear forensics capability. The
national security need to establish such a capability has been
well articulated, but the activities within the NNSA are still
not clearly distinguished. The Committee directs the NNSA to
name a lead program office responsible for the coordination of
the NNSA intra- and cross-agency activities that contribute to
building a national nuclear forensics capability.
Report on the Four-year Goal to Secure Vulnerable Nuclear
Materials.--The Committee expects that as the four-year effort
to secure materials worldwide concludes, the NNSA will be able
to demonstrate many accomplishments, but it should also be able
to provide an accurate accounting of what was unable to be
accomplished and why. No later than May 1, 2014, the NNSA is
directed to provide the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate with a full accounting
of its four-year work that identifies what challenges remain
and where emphasis needs to be placed in the future to achieve
the NNSA's international nuclear security goals. This report
should also include an analysis of Russia's willingness and
ability to support and sustain the nuclear security investments
the NNSA has made as part of the four-year effort.
Performance Measures.--While progress has been made
reducing uncosted balances and improving reporting, the
Committee has continued concerns regarding the NNSA's ability
to evaluate and provide meaningful assessments of its own
program performance. The Government Accountability Office
reported in December 2011 that the results of some programs
appear overstated because the NNSA measured performance against
different targets at the end of year than the ones presented in
the budget request. The Committee directs the NNSA to contract
with an independent entity with recognized expertise in
evaluating program effectiveness to conduct a review of Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation performance measures. The entity shall
submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate with its findings and
recommendations on developing more accurate and meaningful
measures of program performance. The Committee is aware that
the program uses and tracks additional metrics in some core
programs which may be valuable to decision makers when weighing
the merits of resource allocations. Further, the budget
documents should clearly articulate and track changes to
program goals and schedules over time in order for Congress to
adequately weigh the implications of the budget request. For
example, the original goal of the HEU conversion program was
200 reactors by 2022, but the budget request moves that goal to
2030. The Committee directs the NNSA to expand its metrics and
explanation in future budget requests to provide additional
background on the effectiveness and evolution of its programs.
NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development program conducts applied research, development,
testing, and evaluation of science and technology to respond to
threats to national security posed by the proliferation of
nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. The Committee
recommends $388,838,000 for Nonproliferation and Verification
Research and Development, $32,688,000 above fiscal year 2013
and the same as the budget request. The Committee is concerned
that the NNSA is not adequately planning to meet its space-
based sensor production requirements. In fiscal year 2013, the
NNSA was not able to meet its production requirements after
allowing development to fall so far behind that it could no
longer shift funding to recover its schedule and meet its
deadlines. To prevent repeating these mistakes, the NNSA should
consider fully funding individual sensor procurements in the
initial year of funding starting with its budget request for
fiscal year 2015.
DOMESTIC URANIUM ENRICHMENT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION
The recommendation includes special reprogramming authority
in the bill for up to $48,000,000 in fiscal year 2014 for the
final installment of funding for a domestic uranium enrichment
research, development, and demonstration project, the same
amount as the budget request. The Department requested broad
authority to fund this program through a transfer from any
appropriation of the Department of Energy. The Committee's
recommendation provides the authority to continue to fund this
program within the appropriation for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation.
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
The Committee recommends $128,675,000 for Nonproliferation
and International Security, $26,630,000 below fiscal year 2013
and $13,000,000 below the budget request. No funding is
provided to start a Global Security through Science
Partnerships program. The NNSA may conduct training and similar
partner engagement activities in order to address the expertise
proliferation threat, but may not provide grants that support
research and development projects of foreign scientists. There
is no support for proceeding with a program that does not have
clearly defined expected outcomes and that is based on the
Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program, which
the Government Accountability Office found to have serious
flaws and which may have inadvertently contributed to
sustaining expertise for the Russian nuclear weapons program.
INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION
The International Materials Protection and Cooperation
(IMPC) program works cooperatively with partner countries to
secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material in order to
improve the physical security at facilities that possess or
process significant quantities of materials that are of
proliferation concern. The Committee recommends $369,625,000
for IMPC activities, $202,014,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
the same as the budget request.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
The Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD) program is
responsible for eliminating surplus Russian weapons-grade
plutonium and surplus U.S. weapons-grade plutonium and highly
enriched uranium, including construction of the Mixed Oxide
Fuel Fabrication Facility to meet commitments under the U.S.-
Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. The
Committee recommendation provides $502,557,000 for fissile
materials disposition activities, $182,829,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and the same as the budget request.
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River,
SC.--The Committee recommends $320,000,000, $115,172,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request. During the
fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution, MOX project funding was
sustained at a higher level than was requested. In addition,
the Committee shifted an additional $50,000,000 from MOX
operations to construction in fiscal year 2012. Despite this
influx of additional funding, the NNSA has been unable to
recover its schedule and is now facing another $2,800,000,000
in additional costs. Instead of fulfilling its responsibility
to address these rising costs through reforming its management
of the project and conducting an independent cost estimate to
quantify those cost increases, the NNSA wrote ``TBD'' in its
budget justification and removed all project funding from its
five-year plan while it carries out a strategic pause.
The recommendation provides no additional funding to
continue studying alternatives to the MOX plant. The NNSA has
not described any alternatives which have not already been
exhaustively considered or which are likely to result in any
substantial cost savings to justify this pause, particularly
with no permanent nuclear waste repository available after the
Department's decision to unilaterally terminate Yucca Mountain.
An extended study would instead further drive up the overall
cost of the project by delaying ongoing construction and
diverting attention from what should be a concerted high-
priority effort to improve the project's management and to
limit further cost escalation.
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Other Project Costs
(OPCs).--The Committee recommends $40,000,000, the same as the
budget request. It is not clear how the NNSA has distributed
project construction costs between OPCs and line-item
construction for its FMD projects. The Committee directs the
NNSA to provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 60
days after enactment of this Act which explains how it
distributes these costs for its capital line-item construction
projects.
GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE
The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) mission is to
identify, secure, remove, and facilitate the disposition of
high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and
equipment around the world. The Committee recommends
$408,304,000 for GTRI activities, $91,696,000 below fiscal year
2013 and $16,183,000 below the budget request. While the four-
year goal is set to conclude in December 2013 and it is unclear
whether there will be limitations on the amount of work the
NNSA can accomplish within Russia, the budget request proposed
a drastic cut in funding for international activities that have
received strong bipartisan support and that directly contribute
to our nation's security. The Committee recommendation provides
$208,000,000, $20,000,000 above the amount requested for GTRI
international material removal and protection activities, and
contains new funding controls to ensure the NNSA does not
divert funding for these international security activities to
lower-priority activities. In fiscal year 2012, the NNSA used
its internal funding flexibility to realign approximately
$18,000,000 requested to secure and remove vulnerable
international nuclear materials to increase funding for
domestic material protection activities, which do not pose the
same threat to national security and which are already
regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While the
recommendation for the international activities is increased,
the amount of funding for domestic radiological material
removal and protection is reduced, resulting in an overall
decrease in total funding for GTRI from the budget request.
HEU Reactor Conversions.--The Committee recommends
$162,000,000, the same as the budget request.
International Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal and
Protection.--The Committee recommends $208,000,000 to remove
Russian-origin, U.S.-origin, and gap materials and to remove
and secure nuclear and radiological materials at research
reactors and radiological buildings, $20,000,000 above the
budget request. While it accelerates the repatriation of U.S.
origin fuel, the NNSA is placing an increasing burden on the
spent fuel management responsibilities of the Office of
Environmental Management, which assumes the cost of storage and
disposition. The NNSA should adopt a more appropriate cost
sharing model that reflects the national security purpose of
accelerating the return, storage, and disposition of this
material.
Domestic Radiological Material Removal and Protection.--The
Committee recommends $38,304,000, $35,717,000 below the budget
request. Domestic radiological materials are regulated by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and licensees are subject to
U.S. law for providing adequate protection of these materials.
While the NNSA may be able play a positive role in improving
the level of protection, the program model is excessively
bureaucratic and has large laboratory and contract overhead
costs that ultimately limit the program's impact. Further,
there are numerous cost-effective strategies that could be
adopted to improve effectiveness, such as providing more
accessible training opportunities for state inspectors and
licensees. The NNSA is directed to conduct a program review
and, not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, to
provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate on strategies to
improve its programmatic model. In addition, the private sector
continues to offer greater opportunities for radiological
material disposal to states and licensees, and the NNSA should
ensure that its efforts in no way compete with or limit the
growth of private sector enterprise.
NUCLEAR INCIDENT RESPONSE
The Office of Emergency Operations responds to and
mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide and has
a lead role in defending the nation from the threat of nuclear
terrorism. The Committee recommendation includes funding for
nuclear incidence response activities for the first time within
the appropriation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, instead
of within the appropriation for Weapons Activities as in fiscal
year 2013. The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for Nuclear
Incident Response, $1,293,000 below the budget request.
NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM AND COUNTERPROLIFERATION
The Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation
provides the expertise, practical tools, and technically
informed policy recommendations required to understand nuclear
threat devices and advance nuclear counterterrorism and
counterproliferation objectives. The Committee recommendation
includes consolidated and dedicated funding for the Office of
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation for the first time
within the appropriation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,
instead of within the appropriation for Weapons Activities as
in fiscal year 2013. The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation, $9,666,000
below the budget request.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
Use of prior-year balances.--As requested, the Committee
directs the use of $36,702,000 in prior-year balances to offset
the fiscal year 2014 needs as described above. These balances
are available due to lower than anticipated payments for
pensions in fiscal year 2012.
Rescission.--In title V, the Committee rescinds $20,000,000
in prior-year balances from Russian Surplus Materials
Disposition. Funding is available without impact since the U.S.
has still not reached an agreement with Russia on milestones in
accordance with the amended Plutonium Management and
Disposition Agreement. Once an agreement is reached, the NNSA
may request additional funding.
Naval Reactors
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $1,080,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 1,246,134,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 1,109,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +29,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -137,134,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Naval Reactors (NR) program is responsible for all
aspects of naval nuclear propulsion from technology development
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal.
The program provides for the design, development, testing, and
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and
reactor cores. The Committee recommendation provides
$1,109,000,000 for Naval Reactors, $29,000,000 above fiscal
year 2013 and $137,134,000 below the budget request. The fiscal
year 2014 budget request adheres to the Committee's
requirements to identify separate funding for the OHIO-
Replacement Reactor Systems Development and the S8G Prototype
Refueling, and the Committee continues to provide funding
separately for these high-priority activities. While funding
for new activities will continue to be constrained, the
Committee's recommendation fully funds development of the OHIO-
Replacement ballistic missile submarine and refueling of the
S8G prototype, which is closely linked to the OHIO-Replacement.
NR Development.--The Committee recommends $421,400,000,
$400,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $2,000,000 above the budget
request. Additional funding above the request is provided to
support operation of the Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho
National Laboratory.
NR Operations and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$363,198,000, $4,898,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $92,542,000
below the budget request. The recommendation does not include
funding requested for detailed design of a new spent fuel
recapitalization project.
Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project.--The
Committee recommends no funding and directs a two-year delay to
commence detailed design for this new start project. While a
delay may drive up the overall costs by as much as
$335,000,000, the Committee anticipates that the limited
budgets expected under the Budget Control Act will not support
the most cost-effective funding profile for this project while
also simultaneously funding the large increases required for
the development of the OHIO-Replacement ballistic missile
submarine and the refueling of the S8G prototype reactor. If NR
starts design in fiscal year 2014, even a delay caused by a
Continuing Resolution or flat funding would drive up the cost
of recapitalization by as much as $260,000,000. A two-year
delay staggers peak funding requirements slightly and
ultimately provides a more reliable planning basis.
While detailed design and construction on the project is
delayed, NR should continue conceptual design activities for
the project within available funding to fully investigate any
alternatives that might lower costs. The DOE Inspector General
reported in December 2012 that NR had not adequately considered
the use of a commercial off-the-shelf product prior to
upgrading and modernizing the financial components of its
Enterprise Business System. Its proposed new spent fuel
facility would double the capacity and footprint of the
existing facility, and it is still not clear why such an
increase in capacity is needed or if there are alternatives to
growing the footprint that might lower costs. In addition, NR
has not resolved plans to sustain spent fuel examination
capabilities, which could represent significant additional
costs. As part of its continued consideration of alternatives,
NR should also consider whether investment in existing
facilities at Idaho National Laboratory, such as the Idaho
Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), might meet
Navy needs for spent fuel processing.
Infrastructure Planning.--NR provided a ten-year facilities
plan in October 2012, but the plan did not provide a site-by-
site description of its real property and infrastructure
requirements that were clearly linked to strategic programmatic
goals and priorities. Not later than 60 days after enactment of
this Act and annually thereafter, NR is directed to provide the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate with a ten-year site plan that demonstrates an
integrated corporate-level, performance based approach to the
life-cycle management of its real property assets. While the
Department of Energy has excluded NR from the requirements of
DOE Order 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management, Naval
Reactors should work with the DOE Office of Engineering and
Construction Management to make sure the ten-year site plans
developed to meet this requirement provide a comparative level
of detail as other DOE ten-year site plans and conform to the
general intent of DOE Order 430.1B.
Use of prior-year balances.--As requested, the Committee
directs the use of $13,983,000 in prior-year balances to offset
the fiscal year 2014 needs as described above. These balances
are available due to lower than anticipated payments for
pensions in fiscal year 2012.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $410,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 397,784,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 382,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013................................. -28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................... -15,784,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and
oversight for Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field
offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The Committee
recommendation is $382,000,000, $28,000,000 below fiscal year
2013 and $15,784,000 below the budget request.
The recommendation reflects the continued failure of the
NNSA's federal management to provide the Committee with the
reports and information it needs to conduct its oversight
mission, despite the clear commitment made by the NNSA to
produce its required reports in time for the fiscal year 2014
budget request. The Committee expects the NNSA to improve both
the timeliness of its reporting and the quality of the
information provided.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $5,023,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 4,853,909,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 4,750,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -273,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. -103,909,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Defense Environmental Management (EM) program is
responsible for identifying and reducing risks and managing
waste at sites where the nation carried out defense-related
nuclear research and production activities that resulted in
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring
remediation, stabilization, or some other cleanup action. The
Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental Cleanup is
$4,750,000,000, $273,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$103,909,000 below the budget request. The recommendation does
not include a federal contribution of $463,000,000 into the
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
The budget request for cleanup continues to be driven by
individual, site-specific negotiations between the Department
and Federal and state regulators. It has become clear that many
of these agreements, while negotiated in good faith,
nevertheless relied on highly optimistic funding increases that
would have been difficult in any budget environment. Under the
Budget Control Act, the Committee anticipates that future
funding available for environment cleanup will be highly
constrained for the next several years. The Committee's
recommendation reflects that reality, providing $5,489,000,000
overall for the Office of Environmental Management, which
includes funding for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup and the
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
This amount is a reduction of $242,651,000 from the fiscal year
2013 level for overall EM activities.
The Committee has carefully examined the activities that
represent the highest risks to security, public health, and the
environment across the cleanup sites. Funding for Hanford's
tank farm activities represents the largest increase over the
fiscal year 2013 level within Defense EM and is needed to
accelerate tank waste retrieval and to ensure the Department is
appropriately addressing indications of newly leaking tanks, as
well as degraded ventilation and level monitoring systems that
are essential for tank maintenance and safety. The Committee
recognizes security and health risks at Oak Ridge by providing
additional funding for Building 3019 and by separately funding
research on mercury remediation. The recommendation also
includes adequate funding so that the Salt Waste Processing
Facility can begin processing tank wastes at Savannah River in
a more reasonable timeframe. In addition, EM has been notably
underfunding sustainment of the nation's only operating
permanent repository for nuclear waste. A shutdown of the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant would put at risk progress at nearly
every cleanup site and the recommendation provides additional
funding to address maintenance which continues to be deferred.
While the highest risks are addressed, the Committee
recognizes the need to ensure progress towards cleanup
milestones, even where the plan to meet those commitments is
still not clear. As a result, the overall funding amount, while
a decrease from the enacted level, is $184,575,000 above the
post-sequester level for the Office of Environmental Management
and will sustain the pace of cleanup across the sites.
DOE Inspector General Recommendations on Risk-Based
Funding.--In its report on management challenges for fiscal
year 2013, the DOE Inspector General recommends that the
Department reprioritize its cleanup activities on a complex-
wide basis utilizing a risk-based strategy to address a
remaining unfunded environmental remediation liability of
approximately $250,000,000,000. In order to fully implement the
DOE IG's recommendations, the Department is directed to retain
a respected outside group, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, to rank and rate, on a national, complex-wide risk/
priority basis, the Department's outstanding environmental
remediation requirements and to provide a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than one year following enactment of
this Act. The report should include an explanation of the
outstanding risks at each legacy cleanup site.
Community and Regulatory Support.--To provide additional
flexibility, the Committee no longer requires separate
reprograming controls for community and regulatory support and
provides funding for those activities as described below.
Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $876,612,000,
$76,640,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $45,173,000 below the
budget request. Within the amount for River Corridor and other
cleanup operations, funding is included for community and
regulatory support. The recommendation fully funds the request
for cleanup activities on the River Corridor and within the
Central Plateau, except for the request to ramp up funding at
the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP). Only a year after
completing a new baseline for a subset of the overall cleanup
project, DOE is again behind schedule, and the project
continues to face the risks of work stoppages and employee
turnover that have contributed to these delays. In addition,
the DOE Inspector General's review of work on the Central
Plateau found several issues with timely reporting of
performance information and that the Department had not
corrected those performance issues. The Committee continues to
support a measured and constant pace of work at the facility
that emphasizes employee safety, particularly considering that
increasing the pace of activities there is not necessary to
meet the 2016 consent milestone for facility disposition.
The U.S. Department of Justice released a press statement
in March 2013 announcing a settlement following its
investigation that confirmed extensive timecard fraud at
Hanford from 2005 to 2008. It is not clear what actions, if
any, the Department has taken to ensure it can prevent similar
systemic fraud and to foster increased accountability in light
of this settlement. The Committee expects the Department to
more effectively oversee its contractors in order to safeguard
the use of taxpayer funding against fraud, waste, and abuse.
Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends
$368,010,000, $18,859,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $3,000,000
above the budget request. Within this amount, funding is
included for community and regulatory support. In its report
released in January 2013, the Idaho Leadership in Nuclear
Energy Commission noted that once the Idaho cleanup efforts are
completed, the facilities at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment
Plant (AMWTP) could be effectively used to assist in the
characterization and cleanup being performed at other national
locations. Given the current budget climate and the necessity
to use taxpayer resources wisely, the Committee encourages the
Department to fully explore future utilization of the AMWTP to
meet the Department's backlog of environmental cleanup
requirements and obligations to those states with materials
presently awaiting disposition.
NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $284,887,000,
$2,494,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $24,789,000 below the
budget request. Within this amount, the Committee recommends
$195,000,000 for Los Alamos National Laboratory, $10,000,000
above fiscal year 2013, to increase funding available for the
removal of above-ground legacy transuranic waste which has
become a high priority with stakeholders. The Committee is
encouraged by the progress EM has made at Los Alamos despite
the limited funding available. As it finalizes work on a
framework agreement in fiscal year 2014, the Department should
work with the state to establish new milestones that can
reasonably be achieved in the current fiscal environment. The
Department is further directed to work with the state
government and local communities in a transparent and open
dialogue to address questions and concerns regarding any effort
to store uranium waste at the Nevada National Security Site.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends
$204,027,000, $4,518,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $6,000,000
above the budget request. Within the amount for Oak Ridge
Cleanup and Disposition, funding is included for community and
regulatory support. The Committee is concerned by the risks
associated with materials stored in Building 3019 at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory and provides an additional $6,000,000 to
expedite material removal and to accelerate building
modifications to process this material.
The recommendation also provides separate funding at the
requested level to accelerate development of technologies to
address the remediation of mercury in soil and water. The
cleanup of mercury presents significant environmental and
technical challenges, and the Department has yet to develop a
technical approach for its cleanup at Y-12. The Committee
supports efforts to take early action to address this
significant health and environmental risk.
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP).--The
Committee recommends $675,000,000, $65,000,000 below fiscal
year 2013 and $15,000,000 below the request. The reduction
below the request is due to construction funding which cannot
be executed because the Department has halted work on the
Pretreatment Facility while it resolves engineering issues. The
reduction also reflects the lack of a clear overall plan to
complete the facility, the continued failure to provide timely
information, and the continued management of the project
without valid performance data against which it can track
progress.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently
reported that, ``daunting technical challenges that will take
significant effort and years to resolve, combined with a near
tripling of project costs and a decade of schedule delays,
raise troubling questions as to whether this project can be
constructed and operated successfully.'' The revelations
regarding the extent of the outstanding engineering issues are
deeply troubling, and the Department needs to make considerable
improvements in its management of the project to ensure it will
operate safely. The WTP is a critical project that must move
forward, but the budget request provides little transparency
into how the Department is using its funding to advance the
project or whether it is able to track and manage ongoing work.
The Committee's recommendation provides new funding controls to
improve visibility and consolidate management of those design
resolution efforts. With separate funding, the Department
should move forward to rebaseline the remaining unaffected
portions of the project to demonstrate it can adequately track
contractor performance and competently manage the project to
completion.
Low Activity Waste, Analytical Laboratory, and Balance of
Facilities.--The Committee recommends $361,000,000 within a new
reporting and reprogramming control. The Department was one
year late in meeting its first semi-annual reporting
requirement to the Committee for the WTP, and that report did
not adequately describe progress compared to its current
performance baseline. In supplemental data provided to the
Committee for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the Department
reports the Low-Activity Waste Facility portion of the current
Total Project Cost is $2,030,598,000 with a construction
completion date of June 2015, the estimated Analytical
Laboratory portion is $717,108,000 with a construction
completion date of June 2014, and the estimated Balance of
Facilities portion is $1,143,932,000 with a construction
completion date of January 2017. If these dates cannot be met,
the Department should move expeditiously to quantify the delays
and cost increases and submit a change to its baseline, since
completion of these parts of the project are not subject to the
resolution of outstanding engineering issues.
High Level Waste and Pretreatment Facilities.--The
Committee recommends $158,000,000 for procurement,
construction, and commissioning within a new reporting and
reprogramming control. Construction of the Pretreatment
Facility has stopped pending resolution of nuclear safety-
related engineering issues. Therefore, the recommendation does
not include $15,000,000 of the $22,000,000 requested for
construction of the Pretreatment Facility and only provides
construction funding for maintenance of the partially-built
structure. The Department has admitted that starting
construction too early has contributed to the cost growth in
its projects, and the GAO found the continued use of a fast-
track, design-build management approach has resulted in costly
reworking and schedule delays on the WTP project. No funding
shall be used to restart construction at the Pretreatment
Facility until the Department can show it has achieved
sufficient design maturity to prevent rework, as recommended by
the GAO in its December 2012 report. The Department should
provide a full justification for any future request to restart
construction before it has achieved 90 percent design
completion that shows a clear commitment to prevent further
waste of taxpayer funding.
Project Engineering Development, Demonstration and
Testing.--The Committee recommends $156,000,000 within a new
reporting and reprogramming control for project engineering and
design, development, demonstration and testing activities
related to the design of the High Level Waste and Pretreatment
Facilities, as well as additional facilities and infrastructure
that may ultimately be required, such as a direct feed
capability. The Department must present a realistic strategy
and timeline to resolve technical issues, and any changes in
the overall approach to constructing the WTP must be backed by
a business case analysis. As it completes design, the
Department should implement the GAO's recommendations to ensure
the contractor performance evaluation process does not
prematurely reward contractors for resolving technical issues
later found to be unresolved and to take appropriate steps to
determine whether any incentive payments were made erroneously
and, if so, take actions to recover them. The Committee is also
concerned about the quality of the engineering performed to
date on the project and directs the Department to employ
expertise from its national laboratories and independent
sources to validate and assist the ongoing engineering
activities. The Committee directs the Department to include
information on the progress and work plans of its technical
teams within its semi-annual reports on the WTP project.
Savannah River Risk Management Operations.--The Committee
recommends $396,604,000, $56,399,000 above fiscal year 2013 and
$35,887,000 below the budget request. Within this amount,
funding is included for community and regulatory support. The
continued delay of the Salt Waste Processing Facility project
will continue to limit funding available to start new cleanup
activities and to ramp up material stabilization at Savannah
River. The recommendation does not provide additional funding
requested in fiscal year 2014 for new start activities
associated with reprocessing and risk reduction work at
Building 235-F. While the Committee awaits a cost estimate and
benefit analysis for those new start activities, the Department
should move forward with operational improvements that will
minimize the ongoing risks of Building 235-F.
Project 05-D-405, Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF),
Savannah River.--The Committee recommends $120,000,000,
$50,071,000 below fiscal year 2013 and $28,000,000 above the
budget request. The Committee is concerned by the lack of
progress in developing a credible path forward for meeting
commitments to clean up large quantities of liquid radioactive
waste at Savannah River. The Department submitted a budget
request for the project that provided no clear solution for
resolving considerable cost increases of this project. Though
it has acknowledged it will not meet its 2015 startup
commitment to regulators, the Department has not explained how
the limited funding proposed in the budget request would impact
the timeline and overall costs of meeting that commitment.
While the Committee is encouraged by recent efforts to exercise
options within existing contracts that hold contractors more
accountable and to negotiate new performance-based contracts
which share risk and reduce waste, the Department is also
accountable for developing credible plans that will not waste
taxpayer dollars. The extended time it has taken the Department
to resolve its plan is not acceptable for an ongoing major
project, and significant delays of construction will drive up
costs. The recommendation includes funding above the request to
establish a more credible funding plan for timely completion of
the SWPF.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
recommends $10,000,000, $1,000,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$10,000,000 below the budget request. Much of the legacy
cleanup accomplished to date has required relatively
straightforward techniques, but an increasing proportion of the
remaining cleanup poses challenges that will require
concentrated research and development to address. The
Department needs to provide better transparency into its
request for development funds as those activities relate to
individual site cleanup efforts. The recommendation includes
development funding to address mercury remediation at Y-12
within funding for Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the first
time. The Department should consider this funding model for
future requests for technology development.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $823,364,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 749,080,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 830,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +6,636,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. +80,920,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
Other Defense Activities provides funding for the Office of
Health, Safety and Security; Office of Legacy Management; Idaho
Sitewide Safeguards and Security; Defense Related
Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
The Committee recommendation for Other Defense Activities (ODA)
is $830,000,000, $6,636,000 above fiscal year 2013 and
$80,920,000 above the budget request.
Health, Safety and Security.--The Office of Health, Safety
and Security (HSS) develops programs and policies to protect
the workers at the Department's sites and facilities and the
public; conducts independent oversight of performance and
security; and integrates health, safety, and security policies
across the Department, among other related functions. The
Committee recommends $247,616,000 for the Office of Health,
Safety and Security, $3,121,000 below fiscal year 2013 and
$4,301,000 below the budget request. The Committee believes it
is critical to preserve the authority of HSS to independently
assess Departmental compliance and performance and that HSS
continues to have access to and cooperation from all
Departmental programs. HSS is directed to continue to provide
annual updates on its oversight activities.
The Committee notes considerable improvements made
regarding the responsiveness of DOE program offices in
addressing findings identified by HSS during its reviews and
inspections, which have enabled much needed action on embedded
cultural problems impacting nuclear safety and the security
posture at several DOE sites. However, the Committee remains
highly concerned about the protection of special nuclear
materials at the DOE sites and the ability of the Department to
conduct basic security reform. The Department must be able to
set and enforce security standards and to update those
standards in a timely manner as its understanding of the risks
and threats evolve. The latest attempt to update the Graded
Security Posture (GSP) policy has become mired in bureaucracy,
shuffled along a seemingly endless concurrence chain with no
clear accountability or timeline for completion. The GSP is
used by the sites as the basis for establishing protective
force levels and security implementation plans to meet the
latest threat. The document has not been updated in over five
years, and implementation of the previous policy has been
inconsistent, resulting in a lack of standardization across
sites that is difficult for federal security managers to
oversee. Without clear responsibility and accountability for
who sets and enforces those security standards, the Department
has by default passed on this inherently federal responsibility
to its contractors. The DOE is directed to move expeditiously
in updating its analysis with the latest known threats and
approving a GSP that can be used to set and enforce adequate
and consistent standards of protection at each DOE site.
Specialized Security Activities.--The Committee recommends
$191,500,000 for Specialized Security Activities, $4,801,000
above fiscal year 2013 and $4,822,000 below the budget request.
Office of Legacy Management.--The Office of Legacy
Management provides long-term stewardship following site
closure. The Committee recommends $173,026,000 for Legacy
Management, $3,426,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $3,957,000
below the budget request.
Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security.--The Committee
recommends $94,000,000 for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and
Security, $650,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as
requested within Nuclear Energy.
Defense Related Administrative Support.--The Committee
recommends $118,836,000, the same as fiscal year 2013 and the
budget request, to provide administrative support for programs
funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts.
Office of Hearings and Appeals.--The Office of Hearings and
Appeals is responsible for all of the Department's adjudicatory
processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends $5,022,000,
$880,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Management of the federal power marketing functions was
transferred from the Department of the Interior to the
Department of Energy in the Department of Energy Organization
Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91). These functions include the power
marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Bonneville
Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration,
the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing
functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been
transferred to the Western Area Power Administration.
All four power marketing administrations give preference in
the sale of their power to publicly-owned and cooperatively-
owned utilities. Operations of the Bonneville Power
Administration are financed principally under the authority of
the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-
454). Under this Act, the Bonneville Power Administration is
authorized to use its revenues to finance the costs of its
operations, maintenance, and capital construction, and to sell
bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional
capital program requirements.
Beginning in fiscal year 2011, power revenues from the
Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power
Administrations, which were previously classified as mandatory
offsetting receipts, were reclassified as discretionary
offsetting collections to directly offset annual expenses. The
capital expenses of Southwestern and Western Area Power
Administrations are appropriated annually.
Bonneville Power Administration
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets the power from federal hydropower projects
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-federal generating
facilities in the region, and exchanges and markets surplus
power with Canada and California. Language is included to allow
expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund for
John Day Reprogramming and Construction, Columbia River Basin
White Sturgeon Hatchery, and Kelt Reconditioning and
Reproductive Success Evaluation Research. Expenditure authority
also is provided for construction or participation in the
construction of a high voltage line from Bonneville's high
voltage system to the service areas of requirements customers
located within Bonneville's service area in southern Idaho,
southern Montana, and western Wyoming; such line may extend to,
and interconnect in, the Pacific Northwest with lines between
the Pacific Northwest and the Pacific Southwest.
The Committee remains concerned about implementation of the
memorandum dated March 16, 2012, from the Secretary of Energy
instructing the Power Marketing Administrations to modernize
their operations. In particular, communication with the
appropriate committees of Congress regarding statutory
authority and the potential impact on electricity prices
remains limited at best. For fiscal year 2014, no expenditure
authority is requested and no expenditure authority is provided
to comply with this memorandum. The Committee directs each
Power Marketing Administration to report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
any direction provided by the Secretary with an analysis of the
costs of complying with such direction, including additional
costs to electricity consumers.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. - - -
Budget estimate, 2014................................. - - -
Recommended, 2014..................................... - - -
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) markets
hydroelectric power produced at 22 Army Corps of Engineers
Projects in 11 states in the southeast. Southeastern does not
own or operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to
``wheel'' its power using the existing transmission facilities
of area utilities.
The total program level for SEPA in fiscal year 2014 is
$101,034,000, with $93,284,000 for purchase power and wheeling
and $7,750,000 for program direction. The purchase power and
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $78,081,000,
and annual expenses will be offset by collections of $7,750,000
provided in this Act. Additionally, SEPA has identified
$15,203,000 in alternative financing for purchase power and
wheeling. The net appropriation, therefore, is $0 in the
recommendation and the budget request.
The Committee remains concerned about implementation of the
memorandum dated March 16, 2012, from the Secretary of Energy
instructing the Power Marketing Administrations to modernize
their operations. In particular, communication with the
appropriate committees of Congress regarding statutory
authority and the potential impact on electricity prices
remains limited at best. For fiscal year 2014, no funding is
requested and no funding is provided to comply with this
memorandum. The Committee directs each Power Marketing
Administration to report to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate any direction
provided by the Secretary with an analysis of the costs of
complying with such direction, including additional costs to
electricity consumers.
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $12,702,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 11,892,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 11,892,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -810,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) markets
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Texas. SWPA operates and maintains 1,380 miles of
transmission lines, along with supporting substations and
communications sites.
The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power
Administration is a net appropriation of $11,892,000, the same
as the budget request. The total program level for Southwestern
in fiscal year 2014 is $101,764,000, including $13,598,000 for
operation and maintenance expenses, $52,000,000 for purchase
power and wheeling, $29,939,000 for program direction, and
$6,227,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total
$75,564,000, including $42,000,000 for purchase power and
wheeling, $28,267,000 for program direction, and $5,297,000 for
operations and maintenance. Southwestern estimates it will
secure alternative financing from customers in the amount of
$14,308,000.
The Committee remains concerned about implementation of the
memorandum dated March 16, 2012, from the Secretary of Energy
instructing the Power Marketing Administrations to modernize
their operations. In particular, communication with the
appropriate committees of Congress regarding statutory
authority and the potential impact on electricity prices
remains limited at best. For fiscal year 2014, no funding is
requested and no funding is provided to comply with this
memorandum. The Committee directs each Power Marketing
Administration to report to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate any direction
provided by the Secretary with an analysis of the costs of
complying with such direction, including additional costs to
electricity consumers.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $91,900,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 95,930,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 95,930,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +4,030,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles
long. Western provides electricity to 15 western states over a
service area of 1.3 million square miles.
The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power
Administration is a net appropriation of $95,930,000, the same
as the budget request. The total program level for Western in
fiscal year 2014 is recommended at $830,098,000, which includes
$122,437,000 for construction and rehabilitation, $82,843,000
for system operation and maintenance, $407,109,000 for purchase
power and wheeling, and $217,709,000 for program direction. No
funding is provided, or requested, for the Utah Mitigation and
Conservation Fund, consistent with Public Law 108-137 which
ended Western's contributions in fiscal year 2013.
Offsetting collections include $434,727,000 for purchase
power and wheeling and annual expenses, and the use of
$6,092,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River
Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98-381). Western Area estimates
it will secure alternative financing from customers in the
amount of $293,349,000.
The budget request proposed legislative language to allow
the recovery of purchase power and wheeling expenses to include
the cost of voluntary participation in state greenhouse gas
programs. The Committee agrees with Western that the Clean Air
Act does not require Western to participate in California's cap
and trade program for greenhouse gases. Further, the Committee
strongly believes that Western and the Department should have
sought agreement from the appropriate committees of the
Congress prior to committing Western to participating
voluntarily in this state program. A new activity of this
magnitude, especially a voluntary activity that could have a
significant cost to Western's customers and federal taxpayers,
should not have been undertaken without specific approval from
the Congress. Without a clear understanding of the costs and
other implications of voluntary participation in California's
program generally and the legislative language specifically,
the Committee must reject the budget proposal. Instead, Western
and the Department are directed to report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act on the costs
and other implications of alternative methods of voluntary
participation in the state program, as well as the alternative
of not participating in the state program.
The Committee remains concerned about implementation of the
memorandum dated March 16, 2012, from the Secretary of Energy
instructing the Power Marketing Administrations to modernize
their operations. In particular, communication with the
appropriate committees of Congress regarding statutory
authority and the potential impact on electricity prices
remains limited at best. For fiscal year 2014, no expenditure
authority is requested and no expenditure authority is provided
to comply with this memorandum. The Committee notes that the
Joint Outreach Team submitted to the Secretary final
recommendations for the Western Area Power Administration on
January 29, 2013. The Secretary, in a memorandum dated March 1,
2013, directed Western to prepare an implementation plan to
help prioritize tasks and establish a schedule for completion.
The Committee directs Western to provide this information to
the Committee not later than three days after providing it to
the Secretary. The information to the Committee should include
an analysis of the costs of implementing each recommendation,
including additional costs to electricity consumers.
The Committee is concerned that Western has not been fully
responsive in its efforts to work with its customers in
implementing its Access to Capital (A2C) initiative. The
Committee believes that Western has relied too much on a ``top
down'' approach and could be missing innovative proposals from
its customer base. Accordingly, the Committee hopes to see
improvement in Western's approach and will continue to monitor
further developments to ensure that customers' concerns are
addressed.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $220,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 420,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 420,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +200,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and
Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these
two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area
Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of
operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is
administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use
by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission.
The budget request includes a proposal for permanent
authority to accept contributed funds for use in fulfilling
duties associated with the Falcon and Amistad Dams. This
authority would be equivalent to the authority used throughout
the Western Area Power Administration to secure alternative
financing. The Committee amends this proposal to limit
authority to up to $865,000 in fiscal year 2014 only.
The Committee recommendation is a net appropriation of
$420,000, the same as the budget request. The total program
level is $6,196,000, with $4,910,671 of offsetting collections
applied toward annual expenses and $865,000 of alternative
financing.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $304,600,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 304,600,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 304,600,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $-304,600,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. -304,600,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... -304,600,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $304,600,000, the same as
fiscal year 2013 and the budget request. Revenues for FERC are
established at a rate equal to the budget authority, resulting
in a net appropriation of $0.
The Committee is aware that concerns remain about the
degree of consideration given by FERC to the rights and
concerns of private property owners during the process for
developing, reviewing, and approving shoreline management
plans. The Committee reiterates its support for the expeditious
development and implementation of innovative and mutually
agreeable solutions to resolve conflicts among project purposes
and private property at specific locations. The Committee also
expects FERC to complete as soon as possible its review of the
overall shoreline management plan process and report to
Congress, as directed in fiscal year 2012.
Natural Gas Export Project Consideration.--The Committee is
concerned with the pace of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's consideration of natural gas export projects,
including the use of ``tolling orders'' to extend statutory
deadlines. The Committee supports a clearly communicated,
expedited process to make an appropriate determination on each
of the pending applications and directs the Commission to
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, not later than 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, its plan to finish
consideration of all applications filed with the Commission.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee's detailed funding recommendations for
programs in Title III are contained in the following table.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of
funds provided in this title to initiate requests for
proposals, other solicitations or arrangements for new programs
or activities that have not yet been approved and funded by the
Congress; requires notification or a report for certain funding
actions; prohibits funds to be used for certain multi-year
``Energy Programs'' activities without notification; and
prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds provided in
this title through a reprogramming of funds except in certain
circumstances.
The bill continues a provision that permits the transfer
and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with
appropriation accounts established in this bill.
The bill continues a provision that authorizes intelligence
activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section
504 of the National Security Act of 1947.
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of
funds in this title for capital construction of high hazard
nuclear facilities, unless certain independent oversight is
conducted.
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of
funds provided in this title to approve critical decision-2 or
critical decision-3 for certain construction projects, unless a
separate independent cost estimate has been developed for that
critical decision.
The bill includes a provision amending the frequency with
which a certain review is required.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the
implementation of section 407 of division A of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The bill includes a provision standardizing the
availability of funds for certain research and development
activities.
The bill includes a provision prohibiting the Office of
Science from entering into multi-year funding agreements with a
value of less than $1,500,000.
The bill includes a provision requiring a plan for tritium
and enriched uranium.
The bill includes a provision requiring analysis of
alternatives for warhead life extension programs.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $68,263,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 64,618,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 70,317,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +2,054,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. +5,699,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional
economic development agency established in 1965 by the
Appalachian Regional Development Act (Public Law 89-4). It
comprises the governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a
federal co-chair appointed by the President. Each year, the ARC
provides funding for several hundred projects in the
Appalachian Region in areas such as business development,
education and job training, telecommunications, infrastructure,
community development, housing, and transportation.
The Committee recommendation for the ARC is $70,317,000,
$2,054,000 above fiscal year 2013 and $5,699,000 above the
budget request.
The ARC targets 50 percent of its funds to distressed
counties or distressed areas in the Appalachian region. The
Committee continues to believe this should be the primary focus
of the ARC.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $29,130,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 29,915,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 29,915,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +785,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was
created by the fiscal year 1989 National Defense Authorization
Act. The Board, composed of five members appointed by the
President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary
of Energy regarding public health and safety issues at the
Department's defense nuclear facilities. The DNFSB is
responsible for reviewing and evaluating the content and
implementation of the standards relating to the design,
construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department
of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. The Committee expects
the DNFSB to continue to play a significant role in
scrutinizing the Department's safety and security activities,
including the reform initiatives underway in the Department
that may impact projects under its jurisdiction.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2014 is
$29,915,000, $785,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same as
the budget request.
The recommendation includes $850,000 to procure inspector
general services from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as
directed in fiscal year 2012 and 2013. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission can provide effective and appropriate inspector
general services for the Board and the Board has provided no
alternative agencies or advisory bodies which would meet the
full intent of the Committee's direction. The Board should move
expeditiously in standing up these services, which are to be
provided permanently, subject to future appropriations.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $11,677,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 11,319,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 11,319,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -358,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state
partnership established by the Delta Regional Authority Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-554) that serves a 252-county/parish area
in an eight-state region near the mouth of the Mississippi
River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each
participating state, the DRA is designed to remedy severe and
chronic economic distress by stimulating economic development
and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on
the region's economy. The DRA seeks to help local communities
leverage other federal and state programs, which are focused on
basic infrastructure development, transportation improvements,
business development, and job training services. Under federal
law, at least 75 percent of appropriated funds must be invested
in distressed counties and parishes, with 50 percent of the
funds provided for transportation and basic infrastructure
improvements.
For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends $11,319,000,
$358,000 below fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget
request.
Denali Commission
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $10,679,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 7,396,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 7,396,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -3,283,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Denali Commission is a regional development agency
established by the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-277) to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, health
services, and economic support throughout Alaska. To ensure
that local communities have a stake in Commission-funded
projects, local cost-share requirements for construction and
equipment have been established for both distressed and non-
distressed communities.
For the cost of the Commission's operations in fiscal year
2014, the Committee recommends $7,396,000, $3,283,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request.
Northern Border Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $1,497,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 1,355,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 1,355,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -142,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-234) authorized the establishment of the Northern Border
Regional Commission (NBRC) as a federal-state partnership
intended to address the economic development needs of
distressed portions of the four-state region of Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. The Committee has continued
legislative language addressing the Commission's administrative
expenses.
The Committee recommends $1,355,000 to support the
Commission's activities in fiscal year 2014, $142,000 below
fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Apropriation, 2013*.................................. $250,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. - - -
Recommended, 2014..................................... 250,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. +250,000
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-234) authorized the establishment of the Southeast Crescent
Regional Commission as a federal-state partnership intended to
address the economic development needs of distressed portions
of the seven-state region in the southeastern United States not
already served by a regional development agency.
The Committee recommends $250,000 for operations of the
commission in fiscal year 2014, the same as fiscal year 2013
and $250,000 above the budget request.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $1,027,240,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 1,043,937,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 1,043,937,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +16,697,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $-899,726,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. -920,721,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... -920,721,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -20,995,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $127,514,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 123,216,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 123,216,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -4,298,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2014 is
$1,043,937,000, $16,697,000 above fiscal year 2013 and the same
as the budget request. The total amount of budget authority is
offset by estimated revenues of $920,721,000, $20,995,000 more
than fiscal year 2013 and the same as the budget request.
Including revenues, the net appropriation for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is $123,216,000.
Not more than $9,500,000 is included for salaries, travel,
and other support costs for the Office of the Commission. These
salaries and expenses shall include only salaries and benefits
costs and travel costs, and are not to include general and
administrative and infrastructure costs. The Committee directs
that these funds are to be jointly managed by the
Commissioners, and the bill requires that the use and
expenditure of these salaries and expenses shall only be by a
majority vote of the Commission. The NRC shall include a
breakout and explanation of the Commission salaries and
expenses in its annual budget requests. If the Commission
wishes to change the composition of the funds requested for its
salaries and expenses in future years, it must do so in an
annual budget request or through a reprogramming.
The Committee notes that the NRC continues its
administrative shutdown of the Yucca Mountain license
application, as well as its willful misrepresentation of
congressional intent. The recommendation continues language
prohibiting the Chairman of the NRC from terminating any
program, project, or activity without the approval of a
majority of Commissioners. In addition, the recommendation
requires the NRC to notify and report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
on the use of emergency functions. The recommendation directs
the use of prior-year funds to complete the Yucca Mountain
license application. The Committee does not share the
Administration's perspective that once Nuclear Waste Fund
resources are depleted, the NRC's responsibility to complete
the Yucca Mountain license application is obviated. The NRC is
directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than January
1, 2014, on its plan to complete the license application with
existing resources and proposals to make available additional
funds as necessary.
The Committee recommendation supports the following
activities:
Nuclear Reactor Safety................................ $812,400,000
Operating Reactors................................ 571,900,000
New Reactors...................................... 240,500,000
Nuclear Materials & Waste Safety...................... 231,500,000
Fuel Facilities................................... 60,200,000
Nuclear Materials Users........................... 86,900,000
Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation............. 45,400,000
Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste............... 39,000,000
Integrated University Program.--From within available
funds, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to provide
financial support for the university education programs
relevant to the NRC mission, as the Commission continues to be
reliant on a pipeline of highly trained nuclear engineers and
scientists and benefits substantially from this university
program. Not less than $5,000,000 of this amount is to be used
for grants to support research projects that do not align with
programmatic missions, but are critical to maintaining the
discipline of nuclear science and engineering.
Reporting Requirements.--The Committee directs the
Commission to continue to provide semi-annual reports on the
status of its licensing and other regulatory activities.
Public input.--The Second Circuit's January 7, 2013
decision in Brodsky v NRC affirmed the NRC's authority to issue
exemptions from regulations promulgated pursuant to the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA) and the NRC's conclusion that the hearing
rights under the AEA or Administrative Procedures Act do not
attach to a NRC proceeding granting an exemption. Because the
Court did not have sufficient information on which to determine
whether the NRC had properly exercised its discretion when it
did not provide an opportunity for public input on the
exemption request at issue, the NRC was directed to supplement
the administrative record. The NRC is directed to report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate (1) a summary of public input received in
response to its Federal Register notice (78 Fed. Reg. 20144;
April 3, 2013) on the Draft Environmental Assessment and FONSI
referenced therein; and (2) any modifications made to the
referenced exemption in light of the public comments. The NRC
is also directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate whether existing
regulation(s) bear on the agency's need to prepare an
environmental review for an exemption from the requirements of
10 CFR Part 50 or Part 52.
Emergency Preparedness.--The Committee directs the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to work with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to monitor and, as necessary, provide
updates regarding work related to radiological emergency
response. The NRC staff shall maintain current on federal
standards, guidance, and studies (e.g. SOARCA) to validate that
the current emergency planning requirements are adequate and
scalable to respond to extreme events.
The NRC shall coordinate with FEMA and other relevant
executive branch agencies and report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act on its
recommendations for additional actions that should be included
within National Response Framework to improve national
capability to respond in the aftermath of a significant natural
event that impacts operating nuclear power plants. The NRC
shall coordinate with FEMA to ensure that any changes to the
provisions provided in the current on-site radiological
emergency response plans are consistent with the all-hazards
plans for the same jurisdictions. Further, the NRC shall work
with FEMA, state and local officials to evaluate the efficacy
of various communication platforms for public awareness of
emergency preparedness.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $10,860,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 11,105,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 11,105,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +245,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $-9,774,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. -9,994,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... -9,994,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... -220,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $1,086,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 1,111,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 1,111,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... +25,000
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Committee recommends $11,105,000, $245,000 above fiscal
year 2013 and the same as the budget request. Given the formula
for fee recovery, the revenue estimate is $9,994,000, resulting
in a net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Inspector General of $1,111,000.
The Committee has included $850,000 within the
appropriation for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
for the Board to procure Inspector General services from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $3,400,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 3,400,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 3,400,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) was
established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Committee expects the NWTRB to be actively engaged with the
Department, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
Future, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on issues
involving nuclear waste disposal. The NWTRB should also provide
support to the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's efforts to archive and preserve all Yucca
Mountain-related documents and physical materials of scientific
value.
The Committee recommends $3,400,000 for the NWTRB, the same
as fiscal year 2013 and the budget request.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects
Appropriation, 2013*.................................. $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2014................................. 1,000,000
Recommended, 2014..................................... 1,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2013............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2014............................. - - -
*FY13 enacted level does not include the 251A sequester or the Sec. 3004
OMB ATB.
The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent
agency in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant
to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
324). The Federal Coordinator is responsible for coordinating
local, federal, and international activities for a natural gas
transportation project, including facilitating the permitting
process, as well as joint surveillance and monitoring of
construction with the State of Alaska. A North American natural
gas pipeline would be an important step towards energy
independence for the United States, as it could deliver
significant domestic natural gas supply to the lower 48 states.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 to
support the activities of this office in fiscal year 2014, the
same as fiscal year 2013 and the budget request.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Established in 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
was created as a Government-owned corporation for the
coordinated development of water and power programs among seven
states in the Tennessee Valley. The TVA finances its program
primarily from proceeds available from current power operations
and borrowings against future power revenues.
NNSA Tritium Program.--The Committee directs the Tennessee
Valley Authority to bill the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) on a quarterly basis for the work
supporting the NNSA's tritium program. This report shall
include funding paid by the NNSA to TVA, and any other
programmatic or financial assistance, in support of this
program. This requirement shall apply in future fiscal years
unless contradicted by the Committee.
Reports.--The Committee directs the Inspector General to
forward copies of all audit and inspection reports to the
Committee immediately after they are issued, and immediately
make the Committee aware of any review that recommends
cancellation of, or modification to, any major acquisition
project or grant, or which recommends significant budgetary
savings. The Inspector General is also directed to withhold
from public distribution for a period of 15 days any final
audit or investigation report that was requested by the House
Committee on Appropriations. This requirement shall apply in
future fiscal years unless contradicted by the Committee.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
The bill includes a provision regarding the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission that limits the termination of any
program, project, or activity except in certain circumstances.
The bill includes a provision requiring reporting on the
use of emergency authority.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS AND RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of
funds provided in this Act to, in any way, directly or
indirectly influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress, other than
to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section
1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
The bill includes a provision regarding enforcement of
appropriations levels.
The bill continues a provision limiting the use of funds to
enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or
cooperative agreement with; make a grant to; or provide a loan
or loan guarantee to corporations convicted of a felony
criminal violation of Federal law within the preceding 24
months. The Department shall provide an annual report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate, due not later than 30 days after the end of
each fiscal year, detailing its implementation of this
provision, including a list of affected corporations and a
justification for any cases in which the Department has
determined that the limitation should not apply.
The bill continues a provision limiting the use of funds to
enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or
cooperative agreement with; make a grant to; or provide a loan
or loan guarantee to corporations with certain unpaid Federal
tax liabilities. The Department shall provide an annual report
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, due not later than 30 days
after the end of each fiscal year, detailing its implementation
of this provision, including a list of affected corporations
and a justification for any cases in which the Department has
determined that the limitation should not apply.
The bill includes a modified provision consolidating the
transfer authorities into and out of accounts funded by this
Act. No additional transfer authority is implied or conveyed by
this provision. For the purposes of this provision, the term
``transfer'' shall mean the shifting of all or part of the
budget authority in one account to another. In addition to
transfers provided in this Act or other appropriation Acts, and
existing authorities, such as the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535),
by which one part of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another part, the Act allows transfers
using Section 4705 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2745) and 15 U.S.C. 638 regarding SBIR/STTR.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in
contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11,
1994, regarding environmental justice.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting any new hire by
any Federal agency funded in this Act that is not verified
through the E-Verify Program.
The bill contains a provision regarding rescissions of
prior-year appropriations.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in this
Act from being used to close the Yucca Mountain license
application process or for actions that would remove the
possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the
future.
The bill includes a provision directing the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers, working with the
Government Accountability Office, to provide a comprehensive
report that provides updated performance metrics that are
measurable, repeatable, and directly linked to requests for
funding. Performance measures in future budget justifications
should clearly demonstrate the extent to which prior year
investments in programs, projects, and activities can be tied
to progress toward achieving priority goals and include
estimates for how proposed investments will contribute to
additional progress. In particular, performance measures should
measure outcome (results and impact), output (volume), and
efficiency.
The bill includes a provision regarding the sense of
Congress that Congress should not pass any legislation
authorizing spending cuts that would increase poverty in the
United States.
The bill includes a provision setting at $0 the amount that
the proposed new budget authority in this recommendation
exceeds the allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations
under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
Under section 106, ``General Provisions, Corps of
Engineers--Civil'', funds under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance'' may be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife
Service to mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps projects.
The amount that may be transferred is specified in the
allocation table under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance''.
TITLE II--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Under ``Water and Related Resources'', $28,000 is available
for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and
$8,401,000 is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado
River Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary
may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall
appropriation under the heading.
Under ``California Bay Delta Restoration'', such sums as
may be necessary to carry out authorized purposes may be
transferred to appropriate accounts of other participating
federal agencies.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Under ``Nuclear Energy'', such sums as may be necessary to
support the Yucca Mountain high-level waste geological
repository license application may be transferred to ``Nuclear
Regulatory Commission--Salaries and Expenses''.
Under section 302, ``General Provisions--Department of
Energy'', unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided
for activities in this Act may be transferred to appropriation
accounts for such activities established pursuant to this
title. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the
applicable established accounts and thereafter may be accounted
for as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Under section 505, transfer authorities are consolidated
for the purposes of title III of the Act.
Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressionally Directed Spending Items
Neither the bill nor the report contains any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law.
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and
specifications of projects prior to construction.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Construction, stating that funds can be used for the
construction of river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and
related projects authorized by law, and for detailed studies
and plans and specifications of such projects.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Mississippi River and Tributaries, permitting the use of funds
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers,
Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for:
the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, and related projects authorized by law; providing
security for infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps,
including administrative buildings and laboratories;
maintaining authorized harbor channels provided by a State,
municipality, or other public agency that serve essential
navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and charting
northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing
and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to
navigation.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds
from a special account for resource protection, research,
interpretation, and maintenance activities at outdoor
recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost
of operation and maintenance of dredged material disposal
facilities for which fees have been collected.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the
total amount of funds provided for each of the programs,
projects, or activities funded under the Operation and
Maintenance heading shall not be allocated to a field operating
activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and
permitting the use of these funds for emergency activities as
determined by the Chief of Engineers to be necessary and
appropriate.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support
Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United
States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, providing that funds are available for official
reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this
Act for the activities funded in Expenses.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency
appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other
activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural
disaster.
Language has been included to provide for funding for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase and hire
of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the
funds may be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the execution of
any contract for a program, project or activity which commits
funds in excess of the amount appropriated (to include funds
reprogrammed under section 101) that remain unobligated.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 103, prohibiting the award of a
continuing contract for any project funded out of the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 104, regarding submission of the
Chief of Engineers Report to congressional committees.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 105, requiring the Secretary of the
Army to implement measures to prevent aquatic nuisance species
from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic
connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River
Basin.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 106, providing for transfer
authority to the Fish and Wildlife Service for mitigation for
lost fisheries.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 107, prohibiting certain actions
related to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 108, amending the authorization
limit for Olmsted Locks and Dam.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 109, amending the authorization
limit for the Miami Harbor, Florida project.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 110, amending the authorization
limit for the Little Calumet, Indiana project.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 111, waiving section 902 of the
Water Resources Development Act during fiscal year 2014 for any
project receiving funds provided.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 112, prohibiting certain actions
related to the definition of fill material or discharge of fill
material under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 113, allowing the possession of
firearms at water resources development projects under certain
circumstances.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, providing that funds are available
for fulfilling federal responsibilities to Native Americans and
for grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local
governments and Indian tribes.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, allowing fund transfers within the
overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund
and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing
that such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado
River Dam Fund; and, transfers may be increased or decreased
within the overall appropriation.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, providing for funds to be derived
from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account
established by 16 U.S.C. 6806; that funds contributed under 43
U.S.C. 395 by non-federal entities shall be available for
expenditure; and that funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a are
to be credited to the Water and Related Resources account and
available for expenditure.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, providing that funds may be used
for high priority projects carried out by the Youth
Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, directing the Bureau
of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of
additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by
section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, providing that none of
the funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or
lease of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already
committed to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by
consent or decree.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
California Bay-Delta Restoration, permitting the transfer of
funds to appropriate accounts of other participating federal
agencies to carry out authorized programs; allowing funds made
available under this heading to be used for the federal share
of the costs of the CALFED Program management; and requiring
that CALFED implementation be carried out with clear
performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the program.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Policy and Administration, providing that funds are to be
derived from the Reclamation Fund and prohibiting the use of
any other appropriation in the Act for activities budgeted as
policy and administration expenses.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase of motor
vehicles for replacement.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
Department of the Interior, section 201, providing that none of
the funds may be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds except in certain
circumstances.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
Department of the Interior, section 202, regarding the San Luis
Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
Department of the Interior, section 203, regarding pipeline
reliability standards.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Language has been included under Renewable Energy, Energy
Reliability, and Efficiency for the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment.
Language has been included under Renewable Energy, Energy
Reliability, and Efficiency for expenses necessary for
electricity delivery and energy reliability activities.
Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Nuclear Energy permitting
the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund only to support the Yucca
Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository.
Language has been included under Nuclear Energy providing
funding to affected units of local government, as defined in
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Language has been included under Nuclear Energy providing
for transfers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission salaries and
expenses account to support the Yucca Mountain license
application.
Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and
Development for the acquisition of interest, including
defeasible and equitable interest in any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and
for conducting inquires, technological investigations, and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social and
environmental cost under 30 U.S.C. 3, 1602 and 1603.
Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and
Development, providing for the vesting of fee title or other
real property interests acquired under project in any entity,
including the United States.
Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and
Oil Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances.
Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment.
Language has been included under Science providing for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section
1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in an amount equal to
the appropriated amount as offsetting collections to this
account and making fees collected under section 1702(h) in
excess of the appropriated amount unavailable for expenditure
until appropriated.
Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program prohibiting the subordination of certain
interests.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and
for official reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the
Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue
increases of the same or greater amounts.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the
Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations.
The appropriations language for this account reflects the total
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are
received.
Language has been included under Weapons Activities for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment; and for the purchase of an ambulance.
Language has been included under Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation for the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other incidental
expenses.
Language has been included under Naval Reactors for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment, facilities, and facility expansion.
Language has been included under the Office of the
Administrator providing funding for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Defense Environmental
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor
vehicles.
Language has been included under Other Defense Activities
for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and
capital equipment.
Language has been included under Bonneville Power
Administration Fund providing funding for official reception
and representation expenses; approving funds for certain
programs; and precluding any new direct loan obligations.
Language has been included under Southeastern Power
Administration providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Southeastern Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302
and 16 U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power
and related services shall be credited to the account as
discretionary offsetting collections and remain available until
expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of
the Southeastern Power Administration; amounts collected to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited
to the account as offsetting collections and remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power
and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power
Administration providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302
and 16 U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power
and related services shall be credited to the account as
discretionary offsetting collections and remain available until
expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of
the Southwestern Power Administration; amounts collected to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited
to the account as offsetting collections and remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power
and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration, providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,
16 U.S.C. 825s, and 43 U.S.C. 392a, amounts collected from the
sale of power and related services shall be credited to the
account as discretionary offsetting collections and remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the
annual expenses of the Western Area Power Administration;
amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling
expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting
collections and remain available until expended for the sole
purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that, notwithstanding
68 Stat. 255 and 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected from the
sale of power and related services shall be credited to the
account as discretionary offsetting collections and remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the
annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities of those dams
and associated Western Area Power Administration activities.
Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that the Western Area
Power Administration may accept a limited amount of
contributions from the United States power customers of the
Falcon and Amistad Dams for use by the Commissioner of the
United States Section of the International Boundary and Water
Commission for operating and maintenance of hydroelectric
facilities.
Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to
provide official reception and representation expenses, and to
permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the
appropriation as revenues are received.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 301, prohibiting the use of funds
to prepare or initiate requests for proposals or other
solicitations or arrangements for programs that have not yet
been fully funded by the Congress; requiring notification and
reporting requirements for certain funding awards; limiting the
use of multi-year funding mechanisms; and providing that none
of the funds may be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds except in certain
circumstances.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 302, providing that unexpended
balances of prior appropriations may be transferred and merged
with new appropriation accounts established in this Act.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 303, providing that funds for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized for purposes of section 504 of the National Security
Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2014 until enactment of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 304, prohibiting the use of funds
for capital construction of high hazard nuclear facilities
unless certain independent oversight is conducted.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 305, prohibiting the use of funds
to approve critical decision-2 or critical decision-3 for
certain construction projects, unless a separate independent
cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 306, amending reporting
requirements established in Public Law 110-5.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 307, prohibiting funds to pay the
salaries of employees to carry out section 407 of division A of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 308, providing up to 4.5 percent of
funds made available for certain facilities to be used for
laboratory directed research and development.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 309, requiring the Office of
Science to fund up-front funding arrangements for less than
$1,500,000.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 310, requiring a plan for tritium
and enriched uranium.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 311, regarding cost analysis
requirements for certain nuclear weapons activities.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Language has been included under Appalachian Regional
Commission providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and
allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by subtitle IV
of title 40, United States Code, without regard to section
14704.
Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board providing for the procurement of Inspector General
services.
Language has been included under Delta Regional Authority
allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act without regard to section 382C(b)(2),
382F(d), 382M and 382N of said Act.
Language has been included under Denali Commission allowing
the expenditure of funds notwithstanding section 306(g) of the
Denali Commission Act of 1998, and providing for cost-share
requirements for Commission-funded construction projects in
distressed and non-distressed communities, as defined by
section 307 of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C,
Title III, Public Law 105-277), and an amount not to exceed 50
percent for non-distressed communities.
Language has been included under Northern Border Regional
Commission for expenditure as authorized by subtitle V of title
40, Untied States Code, without regard to section 15751(b).
Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for salaries
and other support costs for the Office of the Commission, to be
controlled by majority vote of the Commission.
Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for official
representation expenses and permits the use of revenues from
licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for
salaries and expenses to reduce the appropriation as revenues
are received. Funding is provided to support university
research and development, and for a Nuclear Science and
Engineering Grant Program.
Language has been included under Office of Inspector
General that provides for the use of revenues from licensing
fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and
expenses, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United
States Code, to reduce the appropriation as revenues are
received.
Language has been included under Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects
making funds received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law
110-140 in excess of the amount specified unavailable for
obligation until appropriated.
Language has been included under Independent Agencies,
General Provisions, section 401, prohibiting the termination of
any program, project, or activity at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission without a majority vote of the Commissioners
approving such action.
Language has been included under Independent Agencies,
General Provisions, section 402, improving transparency for the
use of emergency powers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 501, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to
influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 502, prohibiting the reduction of funding as proposed
in a presidential budget request without such change enacted in
an appropriations Act, or made pursuant to the regular
reprogramming and transfer guidelines.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 503, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement
with a corporation which has been convicted of a felony, except
in certain circumstances.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 504, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement
with a corporation which has any unpaid Federal tax liability
that has been assessed, except in certain circumstances.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 505, prohibiting the transfer of funds except pursuant
to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in this
or any other appropriations Act, or certain other authorities,
and requiring a report.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 506, prohibiting funds in contravention of Executive
Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental
justice.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 507, prohibiting any new hire by any Federal agency
funded in this Act that is not verified through the E-Verify
Program.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 508, rescinding unobligated funds not designated as an
emergency requirement in the ``Construction, General'', ``Food
Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee'',
``General Investigations'', ``Construction'',
``Investigations'', and ``Mississippi River and Tributaries''
headings under the Corps of Engineers and the ``Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy'', ``Weapons Activities'', and
``Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'' headings under the
Department of Energy.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 509, prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to
close the Yucca Mountain license application process, or for
actions that would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain
might be an option in the future.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 510, regarding performance metrics for the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 512, setting at $0 the amount that the proposed new
budget authority exceeds the allocation made by the Committee
on Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Program Duplication
No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Directed Rule Making
The bill does not direct any rule making.
Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1988
(Public Law 100-676)
AN ACT To provide for the conservation and development of water and
related resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of
Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and
harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.
SEC. 3. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Construction.--Except as otherwise
provided in this subsection, 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
recommended in the respective reports designated in this
subsection:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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 OF 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.--The project for navigation,
Haines, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 20, 2004, at a total cost of $14,040,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $11,232,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $2,808,000.
(2) Port lions, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Port Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated June 14, 2006, at a total cost of $9,530,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $7,624,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $1,906,000.
(3) Santa cruz river, paseo de las iglesias,
arizona.--The project for environmental restoration,
Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a total
cost of $97,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$63,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$34,400,000.
(4) Tanque verde creek, pima county, arizona.--The
project for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde
Creek, Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of
$5,906,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,070,000.
(5) Salt river (rio salado oeste), maricopa county,
arizona.--The project for environmental restoration,
Salt River (Rio Salado Oeste), Maricopa County,
Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $166,650,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000.
(6) Salt river (va shly'ay akimel), maricopa county,
arizona.--
(A) In general.--The project for
environmental restoration, Salt River (Va
Shly'ay Akimel), Arizona: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total
cost of $162,100,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $105,200,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $56,900,000.
(B) Coordination with federal reclamation
projects.--The Secretary, to the maximum extent
practicable, shall coordinate the design and
construction of the project described in
subparagraph (A) with the Bureau of Reclamation
and any operating agent for any Federal
reclamation project in the Salt River Basin to
avoid impacts to existing Federal reclamation
facilities and operations in the Salt River
Basin.
(7) May branch, fort smith, arkansas.--The project
for flood damage reduction, May Branch, Fort Smith,
Arkansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $30,850,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $15,010,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $15,840,000.
(8) Hamilton city, glenn county, california.--The
project for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration, Hamilton City, Glenn County, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22,
2004, at a total cost of $52,400,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $34,100,000 and estimated non-Federal
cost of $18,300,000.
(9) Silver strand shoreline, imperial beach,
california.--The project for storm damage reduction,
Silver Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30,
2003, at a total cost of $13,700,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $8,521,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $5,179,000, and at an estimated total cost of
$42,500,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-
year life of the project, with an estimated Federal
cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $21,250,000.
(10) Matilija dam, ventura county, california.--The
project for environmental restoration, Matilija Dam,
Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of
$144,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$89,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$54,800,000.
(11) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The
project for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration, Middle Creek, Lake County, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29,
2004, at a total cost of $45,200,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $29,500,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $15,700,000.
(12) Napa river salt marsh restoration, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for
environmental restoration, Napa River Salt
Marsh Restoration, Napa, California: Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004,
at a total cost of $134,500,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $87,500,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $47,000,000.
(B) Administration.--In carrying out the
project authorized by this paragraph, the
Secretary shall--
(i) construct a recycled water
pipeline extending from the Sonoma
Valley County Sanitation District Waste
Water Treatment Plant and the Napa
Sanitation District Waste Water
Treatment Plant to the project; and
(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1,
1A, 2, and 3.
(13) Denver county reach, south platte river, denver,
colorado.--The project for environmental restoration,
Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver,
Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May
16, 2003, at a total cost of $20,100,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $13,065,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $7,035,000.
(14) Central and southern florida, indian river
lagoon, florida.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out
the project for ecosystem restoration, water
supply, flood control, and protection of water
quality, Central and Southern Florida, Indian
River Lagoon, Florida, at a total cost of
$1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $682,500,000, in accordance with
section 601 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680) and the
recommendations of the report of the Chief of
Engineers dated August 6, 2004.
(B) Deauthorizations.--The following projects
are not authorized after the date of enactment
of this Act:
(i) The uncompleted portions of the
project for the C-44 Basin Storage
Reservoir of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, authorized
by section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114
Stat. 2682), at a total cost of
$147,800,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $73,900,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $73,900,000.
(ii) The uncompleted portions of the
Martin County, Florida, modifications
to the project for Central and Southern
Florida, authorized by section 203 of
the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat.
740), at a total cost of $15,471,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of
$8,073,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $7,398,000.
(iii) The uncompleted portions of the
East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie-
Martin County, Spillway Structure S-311
modifications to the project for
Central and Southern Florida,
authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at
a total cost of $77,118,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$21,994,000.
(15) Comprehensive everglades restoration plan,
central and southern florida, picayune strand
restoration project, collier county, florida.--The
project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern
Florida, Picayune Strand Restoration Project, Collier
County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000
with an estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $187,665,000.
(16) Comprehensive everglades restoration plan,
central and southern florida, site 1 impoundment
project, palm beach county, florida.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, Site 1
Impoundment Project, Palm Beach County, Florida: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a
total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $40,420,000.
(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.
(B) General reevaluation report.--The non-
Federal share of the cost of the general
reevaluation report that resulted in the report
of the Chief of Engineers referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall be the same percentage
as the non-Federal share of cost of
construction of the project.
(C) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter
into a new partnership with the non-Federal
interest to reflect the cost sharing required
by subparagraph (B).
(18) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The
project for environmental restoration and recreation,
East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total
cost of $208,260,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$134,910,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$73,350,000.
(19) Peoria riverfront development, illinois.--The
project for environmental restoration, Peoria
Riverfront Development, Illinois: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost of
$18,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,380,000.
(20) Wood river levee system reconstruction, madison
county, illinois.--The project for flood damage
reduction, Wood River Levee System Reconstruction,
Madison County, Illinois: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated July 18, 2006, at a total cost of
$17,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,193,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,027,000.
(21) Des moines and raccoon rivers, des moines,
iowa.--The project for flood damage reduction, Des
Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa: Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a total
cost of $10,780,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$6,967,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$3,813,000.
(22) Licking river basin, cynthiana, kentucky.--The
project for flood damage reduction, Licking River
Basin, Cynthiana, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of
$18,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,830,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,370,000.
(23) Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana.--The project for
navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total
cost of $9,600,000. The costs of construction of the
project are to be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated
from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from
amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund.
(24) Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, Morganza to the
Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief
of Engineers dated August 23, 2002, and July
22, 2003, at a total cost of $886,700,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $576,355,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $310,345,000.
(B) Operation and maintenance.--The
operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation,
and replacement of the Houma Navigation Canal
lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
floodgate features of the project described in
subparagraph (A) that provide for inland
waterway transportation shall be a Federal
responsibility in accordance with section 102
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2212).
(25) Port of iberia, louisiana.--The project for
navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total
cost of $131,250,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$105,315,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$25,935,000; except that the Secretary, in consultation
with Vermillion and Iberia Parishes, Louisiana, and
consistent with the mitigation plan in the report,
shall use available dredged material and rock placement
on the south bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and
the west bank of the Freshwater Bayou Channel to
provide incidental storm surge protection that does not
adversely affect the mitigation plan.
(26) Smith island, somerset county, maryland.--The
project for environmental restoration, Smith Island,
Somerset County, Maryland: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of
$15,580,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,127,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,453,000.
(27) Roseau river, roseau, minnesota.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau,
Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $25,100,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $13,820,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $11,280,000.
(28) Argentine, east bottoms, fairfax-jersey creek,
and north kansas levees units, missouri river and
tributaries at kansas cities, missouri and kansas.--The
project for flood damage reduction, Argentine, East
Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and North Kansas Levees
units, Missouri River and tributaries at Kansas Cities,
Missouri and Kansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of
$65,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$42,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$22,900,000.
(29) Swope park industrial area, blue river, kansas
city, missouri.--The project for flood damage
reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Blue River,
Kansas City, Missouri: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of
$16,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,037,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,943,000.
(30) Great egg harbor inlet to townsends inlet, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet,
New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $54,360,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $35,069,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $19,291,000, and at an
estimated total cost of $202,500,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with
an estimated Federal cost of $101,250,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $101,250,000.
(31) Hudson raritan estuary, liberty state park, new
jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for
environmental restoration, Hudson Raritan
Estuary, Liberty State Park, New Jersey: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated August 25,
2006, at a total cost of $34,100,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $22,200,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $11,900,000.
(B) Restoration teams.--In carrying out the
project, the Secretary shall establish and
utilize watershed restoration teams composed of
estuary restoration experts from the Corps of
Engineers, the New Jersey department of
environmental protection, and the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey and other
experts designated by the Secretary for the
purpose of developing habitat restoration and
water quality enhancement.
(32) New jersey shore protection study, manasquan
inlet to barnegat inlet, new jersey.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey Shore
Protection Study, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet,
New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $71,900,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $46,735,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $25,165,000, and at an
estimated total cost of $119,680,000 for periodic beach
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with
an estimated Federal cost of $59,840,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $59,840,000.
(33) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, union beach, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach,
New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
January 4, 2006, at a total cost of $115,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $74,800,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $40,200,000, and at an
estimated total cost of $6,500,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with
an estimated Federal cost of $3,250,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $3,250,000.
(34) South river, raritan river basin, new jersey.--
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction
and environmental restoration, South River, Raritan
River Basin, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of
$122,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$79,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$42,800,000.
(35) Southwest valley, bernalillo county, new
mexico.--The project for flood damage reduction,
Southwest Valley, Bernalillo County, New Mexico: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a
total cost of $24,840,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $16,150,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $8,690,000.
(36) Montauk point, new york.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point,
New York: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March
31, 2006, at a total cost of $14,600,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $7,300,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $7,300,000.
(37) Hocking river basin, monday creek, ohio.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek,
Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
August 24, 2006, at a total cost of
$20,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$13,440,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $7,540,000.
(B) Wayne national forest.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary, in
cooperation with the Secretary of
Agriculture, may construct other
project features on property that is
located in the Wayne National Forest,
Ohio, owned by the United States and
managed by the Forest Service as
described in the report of the Corps of
Engineers entitled ``Hocking River
Basin, Ohio, Monday Creek Sub-Basin
Ecosystem Restoration Project
Feasibility Report and Environmental
Assessment''.
(ii) Cost.--Each project feature
carried out on Federal land shall be
designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained at Federal expense.
(iii) Authorization of
appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary of
Agriculture to carry out this
subparagraph $1,270,000.
(38) Town of bloomsburg, columbia county,
pennsylvania.--The project for flood damage reduction,
town of Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 25,
2006, at a total cost of $44,500,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $28,925,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $15,575,000.
(39) Pawleys island, south carolina.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawleys Island,
South Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $5,840,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $3,140,000, and at an
estimated total cost of $21,200,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with
an estimated Federal cost of $10,600,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $10,600,000.
(40) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi,
texas.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation
and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship
Channel, Texas: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at a total cost
of $188,110,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $100,300,000.
(B) Navigational servitude.--In carrying out
the project under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall enforce the navigational
servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel
(including the removal or relocation of any
facility obstructing the project) consistent
with the cost sharing requirements of section
101 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).
(41) Gulf intracoastal waterway, brazos river to port
o'connor, matagorda bay re-route, texas.--The project
for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos
River to Port O'Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 24,
2002, at a total cost of $17,280,000. The costs of
construction of the project are to be paid \1/2\ from
amounts appropriated from the general fund of the
Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(42) Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to
brazos river, texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos River,
Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 16,
2004, at a total cost of $14,450,000. The costs of
construction of the project are to be paid \1/2\ from
amounts appropriated from the general fund of the
Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(43) Lower colorado river basin phase i, texas.--The
project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem
restoration, Lower Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31,
2006, at a total cost of $110,730,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $69,640,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $41,090,000.
(44) Atlantic intracoastal waterway bridge
replacement, deep creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The
project for Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge
Replacement, Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated March 3, 2003, at a
total cost of $37,200,000.
(45) Craney island eastward expansion, norfolk harbor
and channels, hampton roads, virginia.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation,
Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk
Harbor and Channels, Hampton Roads, Virginia:
Report of Chief of Engineers dated October 24,
2006, at a total cost of $712,103,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--Notwithstanding
sections 101 and 103 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 and
2213), the Federal share of the cost of the
project shall be 50 percent.
(46) Centralia, chehalis river, lewis county,
washington.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood damage
reduction, Centralia, Chehalis River, Lewis
County, Washington: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated September 27, 2004, at a total
cost of $123,770,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $74,740,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $49,030,000.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall--
(i) credit, in accordance with
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of
1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the
project up to $6,500,000 for the cost
of planning and design work carried out
by the non-Federal interest in
accordance with the project study plan
dated November 28, 1999; and
(ii) credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the
cost of design and construction work
carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 20320 OF THE CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2007
(Public Law 109-289)
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.
* * * * * * *
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized:
Rescissions
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
bill:
Department or Activity Amount
Corps of Engineers--Civil...................................$200,000,000
Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.157,000,000
Department of Energy: Weapons Activities.....................142,000,000
Department of Energy: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........20,000,000
Comparison With the Budget Resolution
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares
the levels of new budget authority provided in the bill with
the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget
Act.
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302 (b) Allocation This Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory.................................................. 0 0 0 \1\0
Discretionary.............................................. 30,426 38,363 30,426 38,363
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Five-Year Outlay Projections
Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the following table contains five-year
projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office of
outlays associated with the budget authority provided in the
accompanying bill:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projection of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2014............................................. \1\18,871
2015............................................. 8,634
2016............................................. 2,587
2017............................................. 206
2018 and future years............................ 53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Assistance to State and Local Governments
Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State
and local governments is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority........................................ 81
Outlays................................................. \1\16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF NITA LOWEY AND MARCY KAPTUR
We commend Chairman Rogers and Chairman Frelinghuysen for
their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner.
While Chairman Frelinghuysen has worked to incorporate
interests of Members from both parties with a budget allocation
far below what was envisioned under the Budget Control Act, it
is impossible to sufficiently fund critical water resource
projects, support science activities necessary for American
competitiveness, and contribute to our national defense through
vital weapons, naval reactor research, and nonproliferation
funding.
While we appreciate the Chairman's efforts on this bill, we
are dismayed by the broader House Majority's refusal to go to
conference to forge a bipartisan agreement on the budget
resolution that addresses sequestration and provides workable
302(b) allocations for Appropriations bills. This failure of
the House Majority's Leadership imperils this year's
appropriations process, making it nearly impossible to move all
12 bills. Sequestration was intended to be a mechanism to force
the parties to come together to address our long-term fiscal
challenges. It was never meant to be, in itself, a tool for
deficit reduction, and it was certainly never meant to be the
basis for a discretionary spending cap in a budget resolution.
The subcommittee's allocation is $30,426,000,000, a
decrease of $4,057,519,000 from the Administration's budget
request and $2,814,000,000 below the 2013 level, adjusted for
Hurricane Sandy reconstruction and the across-the-board cut
required by sections 3001 and 3004 of Division D of the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013.
This allocation is nearly 2 percent below the level of the bill
after the reductions required by sequestration and $462,000,000
below the levels of 2008. Exacerbating this reduction is the
concurrent increase of $1,569,848,000 in the Weapons and Naval
Reactors accounts, leaving the remaining elements of the bill
more than $2,000,000,000 below the levels in 2008.
The Chairman tried his best to craft a reasonable bill at
this level, prioritizing some of the security programs and the
Corps of Engineers water resource programs, but reasonable
funding for these areas required deep and severe reductions in
other important areas of the bill. Among these drastic
reductions are a nearly 60 percent reduction to renewable
energy programs and an 81 percent reduction to ARPA-E. The cost
of renewable energy is rapidly becoming competitive with other
sources of energy, and this shift may accelerate with the
President's renewed focus on clean energy. Shortchanging
critical energy and infrastructure investments will slow
economic growth and hinder American competitiveness.
While we recognize that difficult choices must be made to
address the nation's serious financial situation, this bill
starkly illustrates the shortsighted nature of the spending cap
set by the House budget. The allocation for Energy and Water is
simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed by the energy
crisis, the need to maintain our water infrastructure and our
national security requirements.
We commend the Chairman for prioritizing the Corps of
Engineers. However, when the rescission of $200,000,000 is
included, funding for the critical activities of the Corps are
$50,000,000 below the budget request and $304,000,000 below
2013. We must modernize our infrastructure by making
preventative and proactive investments. It makes more fiscal
sense to prevent a disaster than to respond. Additionally,
businesses and individuals are much more likely to invest in a
community if there is confidence in its infrastructure.
Further, the nation's ports and waterways are critical to
ensuring that American made goods can move to market, both
domestically and abroad. We firmly believe that our
underinvestment in infrastructure continues to hamper our
economic recovery and has prolonged the current employment
crisis.
The Corps of Engineers currently has a backlog of
authorized projects in excess of $60,000,000,000. Even limiting
the figure to those projects currently budgeted, the balance to
complete these ongoing projects is more than $20,000,000,000.
This bill does very little to move these projects forward,
reducing the Construction account by $331,000,000 from 2013.
Instead, the bill continues the steady decline in funding for
water resource infrastructure, bringing a total reduction of
$769,000,000 to the Corps since 2010. The Corps' Construction
account has been reduced by $688,000,000 in that same
timeframe. We should be doing more to build infrastructure and
create jobs, not less.
To be clear: this decreased investment in water
infrastructure has consequences across the country. By not
supporting these projects, Members are hurting the direct
constituencies that they profess to serve. Without federal
support, construction jobs are never created and local
businesses and individuals never see the kind of indirect
economic benefits that encourage them to embrace risk and make
critical investments in their communities.
With regard to the applied energy programs at the
Department of Energy, this bill would slash funding for applied
energy research and development by more than half, even as
foreign competitors double down to develop 21st Century
technology and undermine our markets through illegal dumping
and intellectual property poaching. We must develop a more
energy secure future as fossil energy sources are depleted and
global demand rises with population growth; this bill does
nothing to achieve that end.
We are disappointed that renewable energy programs in this
bill, so vital to America's future, are drastically reduced,
though the scope of the cut is difficult to discern given the
radically altered budget structure. The majority claims that
these deep reductions to renewable energy programs are
justified because sufficient private sector support exists to
ensure the continuation of cutting edge science and
technological innovation. This claim is misguided and
incongruent with both facts and experience. If you include both
of the programs as outlined in the budget and in the 2013
appropriations that are now combined into Renewable Energy,
Energy Reliability and Efficiency and include the rescission of
$157,000,000 in 2013 funds, the reduction is $2,119,078,000
from the budget request and $1,127,954,000 135 from 2013. That
is $700,000,000 less than this same subcommittee recommended
for these purposes just one year ago.
In providing for critical research and development for
those sectors that currently provide the bulk of our
electricity generation, we cannot sacrifice the future.
Renewable energy can achieve cost competitiveness, but a
continued and sustained research and development program is
necessary and appropriate. Without this investment, the nation
will be forced to continue its reliance on imports to meet our
energy needs. The United States can leverage its strength--
innovation--to restore the United States to a position of
global leadership in clean energy. This effort is a critical
national priority, with implications for our economic
competitiveness, national security, and environmental legacy.
Our nation's chief strategic vulnerability is its
dependence on foreign energy imports and our lack of energy
independence. The United States has spent $2,300,000,000,000
importing foreign petroleum since 2003. This represents
thousands of dollars out of the pockets of every hard-working
American and are dollars spent, not in much-needed American job
creation, but overseas, assisting our competitors in developing
their economies and their energy futures. Our republic will not
compete in the 21st Century and beyond if we further reduce
investments in this area and cede the energy future to other
countries.
Foreign competition in energy poses a real threat and we
appreciate the Chairman's commitment to ensure that technology
developed with taxpayer dollars benefits our nation. The
Department of Energy must do more to ensure that intellectual
property supported by federal dollars is used to further the
interests of the United Sates economy.
While we are concerned with the level of funding, we
appreciate the Chairman's commitment to American manufacturing
with the limited funds at his disposal. Manufacturing remains
one of the most important drivers in our economy, yet only 12
percent of the nation's private sector workforce is currently
employed in manufacturing. We see very little merit in using
federal dollars to foster technological advances or
breakthroughs for products that are not ultimately manufactured
domestically. We must do more to reverse the trend of domestic
firms shifting production overseas, because--to put it simply--
domestic manufacturing drives domestic innovation. When
manufacturing ceases on a product in the U.S. it is often only
a matter of time before the engineering and research and
development responsible for the product move overseas. This
shift makes it virtually impossible for our nation to compete
for and create the next generation of products. In turn, the
loss of these employment opportunities discourages students
from pursuing education in scientific and engineering fields.
The Science account, critical to the competitiveness of our
nation, is reduced by 5 percent from 2012. The bill, with an 81
percent reduction, would effectively end the relatively new
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) program. We
are beginning to see the initial payoff from the ARPA-E, which
advances high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that
are too early for private-sector investment. Both of these
programs drive innovations to support our scientific
competitiveness that we believe will eventually provide much of
the inspiration to overcome the energy crisis and address
climate change. Return on investment from our publicly funded
research and development ranges from 20 to 67 percent. With
this rate of return, we should be increasing our investment in
science; this bill moves in the opposite direction.
Nonproliferation programs are our first line of defense and
the most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent goal of
securing and reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade
material. While the Chairman increases the request for the
Global Threat Reduction Initiative's (GTRI) international
material and removal activities, an action that we applaud,
this bill cuts these critical efforts by $599 million when
compared to 2013 for the same activities. The Administration
has deferred each of the three program goals for GTRI over the
last several budgets. In highly enriched uranium reactor
conversion, the budget requests have delayed completion by ten
years; in removal of vulnerable material the delay has amounted
to three years; finally for the category of protection, the
Administration's goal has slipped from 8,500 buildings
protected with additional security features by 2025 to 2044.
The Chairman simply did not have the resources to reverse this
rapid slide to the right of the schedule.
We are concerned that the funding the bill includes for
Environmental Management (EM) activities is insufficient to
meet the federal government's legal obligations to clean up its
defense nuclear waste. This program is critical to addressing
the environmental legacies of the Cold War and the Manhattan
Project. Given that EM's portfolio is one of the nation's
largest environmental and financial liabilities, we have the
responsibility to address the waste and contamination in the
affected communities in a timely and competent manner.
The bill continues the subcommittee's efforts over the
years to improve program and project management at all of the
agencies under its jurisdiction. In particular, we commend the
Chairman for including the statutory reporting requirement on
Life Extension Programs at the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). Given current estimates, it is unclear
that the plans of the Administration are realistic or
affordable under current budgetary constraints. The provision
will ensure that the Committee has the necessary information to
make informed decisions on proposals made by the NNSA. This is
just one illustration of the subcommittee's continued efforts
to improve program and project management at all of the
agencies under its jurisdiction. We strongly support the
Chairman on this and all the other provisions, old and new,
aimed at increased oversight and improved project management at
the Corps and DOE. However, we are disappointed that the
subcommittee must repeat so many of these provisions from year
to year. It would behoove the agencies to incorporate these
policies into their management structure.
Republicans on the Budget Committee continue to push the
outrageous notion that we can balance our budget through cuts
to non-defense discretionary spending, which account for only
17 percent of federal spending. This action will only harm our
nation.
We commend the Chairman's work; however, the allocation for
this bill is insufficient and irresponsible, and we cannot in
good conscience support it. It is our firm hope that the
Committee will be provided a workable path forward for the FY14
Appropriations bills. We look forward to the day we return
allocations to acceptable levels and to working with the
Chairman and the members of this subcommittee to draft a bill
worthy of support.
Nita Lowey.
Marcy Kaptur.