[House Report 114-91]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { Report
1st Session } { 114-91
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016
_______
April 24, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Simpson, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2028]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page Number
Bill Report
Introduction...............................................
5
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
Corps of Engineers--Civil.......................... 2
11
Investigations............................. 2
19
Construction............................... 3
27
Mississippi River and Tributaries.......... 4
33
Operation and Maintenance.................. 4
36
Regulatory Program......................... 6
59
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program................................ 6
60
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies...... 6
60
Expenses................................... 6
61
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works)..................... 7
62
General Provisions................................. 8
62
II. Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project............................... 12
63
Central Utah Project Completion Account.... 12
63
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources................ 13
65
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.... 14
74
California Bay-Delta Restoration........... 15
75
Policy and Administration.................. 15
75
Administrative Provision................... 16
76
General Provisions................................. 16
76
III. Department of Energy:
Introduction.......................................
76
Committee Recommendations..........................
81
Energy Programs:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy..... 20
82
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 21
89
Nuclear Energy............................. 21
92
Fossil Energy Research and Development..... 22
95
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves..... 22
99
Strategic Petroleum Reserve................ 23
99
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve......... 23
100
Energy Information Administration.......... 23
100
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.......... 23
100
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund................... 24
102
Science.................................... 24
103
Nuclear Waste Disposal..................... 25
109
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.. 25
109
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program...................... 26
110
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
Loan Program........................... 27
110
Departmental Administration................ 27
111
Office of the Inspector General............ 28
112
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities......................... 28
113
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........... 29
121
Naval Reactors............................. 30
124
Federal Salaries and Expenses.............. 30
125
Environmental and Other Defense Activities......... 30
125
Defense Environmental Cleanup.............. 30
125
Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning.................... 31
129
Other Defense Activities................... 31
129
Power Marketing Administrations:
Bonneville Power Administration............ 32
131
Southeastern Power Administration.......... 32
131
Southwestern Power Administration.......... 34
131
Western Area Power Administration.......... 35
132
Falcon and Amistad Operating and
Maintenance Fund....................... 37
132
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............... 38
133
Committee Recommendation...........................
133
General Provisions................................. 39
170
IV. Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.................... 49
170
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............ 50
171
Delta Regional Authority........................... 50
172
Denali Commission.................................. 50
172
Northern Border Regional Commission................ 51
173
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission............. 51
173
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................... 51
173
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............... 53
176
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska
Natural Gas Transportation Projects............ 54
176
V. General Provisions
House of Representatives Report Requirements...............
177
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2016. The following table summarizes appropriations for
fiscal year 2015, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended
in the bill for fiscal year 2016.
INTRODUCTION
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2016 totals $35,402,978,000, $1,200,701,000 above
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2015 and $633,036,000
below the President's budget request. Total defense funding is
$18,883,978,000, $1,039,978,000 above the amount appropriated
in fiscal year 2015 and $251,505,000 below the budget request.
Total non-defense funding is $16,519,000,000, $160,723,000
above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2015 and
$381,531,000 below the budget request.
Title I of the bill provides $5,596,750,000 for the Civil
Works programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
$142,250,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $864,750,000 above the
budget request. Total funding for activities eligible for
reimbursement from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is
estimated at $1,178,000,000, which is $73,000,000 above fiscal
year 2015 and $263,000,000 above the budget request. The bill
makes use of all estimated annual revenues from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund.
Title II provides $1,104,542,000 for the Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $35,458,000 below
fiscal year 2015 and $1,426,000 below the budget request. The
Committee recommends $1,094,668,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation, $35,458,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $4,000,000
below the budget request. The Committee recommends $9,874,000
for the Central Utah Project, the same as fiscal year 2015 and
$2,574,000 above the budget request.
Title III provides $29,012,069,000 for the Department of
Energy, $1,095,272,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$1,515,067,000 below the budget request. Funding for the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which includes
nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation,
naval reactors, and federal salaries and expenses, is
$12,329,000,000, $921,705,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$236,400,000 below the budget request.
Funding for energy programs within the Department of
Energy, which includes basic science research and the applied
energy programs, is $10,324,007,000, $91,265,000 above fiscal
year 2015 and $1,230,957,000 below the budget request. The
Committee recommends $5,100,000,000 for the Office of Science,
$1,657,774,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy;
$936,161,000 for Nuclear Energy; $605,000,000 for Fossil
Energy; and $280,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects
Agency--Energy.
Environmental management activities--non-defense
environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and
decommissioning, and defense environmental cleanup--are funded
at $5,909,743,000, $38,743,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$91,719,000 above the budget request.
Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided
at the requested levels.
Title IV provides $297,785,000 for several Independent
Agencies, $28,805,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $16,875,000
above the budget request. Net funding for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is $140,959,000, $23,101,000 above fiscal
year 2015 and $20,811,000 above the budget request.
Overview of the Recommendation
The Committee recommendation continues the strong
investments in American infrastructure contained in the fiscal
year 2015 Act. The recommendation rejects the Administration's
ill-considered request to cut approximately $708,000,000 from
critical Army Corps of Engineers efforts to keep the nation's
rivers and ports dredged and to protect farmland and cities
from flooding. Such a reduction would have a detrimental impact
on the nation's economic competitiveness and defenses against
flooding. The Committee strongly encourages the Administration
to request a fiscal year 2017 budget that recognizes and
supports these critical missions of the Corps of Engineers.
The recommendation also includes significant support to
ensure the short- and long-term supply of affordable, clean
energy and the stability of the nation's electrical
infrastructure. This portfolio builds upon this country's
significant fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy resources to
strengthen American energy independence. The recommendation
makes key investments in technologies to help our energy sector
adjust to a challenging regulatory environment by supporting
key advances in efficiency and emissions reduction.
National Defense Programs
As in previous years, the Committee considers the national
defense programs run by the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to be the Department of Energy's top
priority. The recommendation strongly supports the Department's
proposals to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile, increase
investment in the NNSA's infrastructure, prevent the
proliferation of nuclear materials, and provide for the needs
of the naval nuclear propulsion program.
Within funding for the NNSA's Weapons Activities, the
recommendation continues support of the multi-year
modernization plans for the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile
and its supporting infrastructure. Early formulations of the
modernization plan tended to focus on stretch goals for warhead
life extension programs and major construction projects that
relied on overly optimistic timelines and invalid cost
assumptions. The Committee will continue to emphasize
conservative and affordable options for life extension programs
and major facility construction that are clearly defined,
resource-informed, and properly scoped to meet the timelines
required. The Committee is concerned that though the costs of
the overall program are escalating, the NNSA is producing less,
taking longer, and scaling back scope just to keep up pace with
the cost growth. To restore credibility, the NNSA must take
early action to resolve the inconsistencies between its goals
for modernization and its ability to achieve those goals. In
the meantime, the Committee will continue to hold the NNSA
accountable for delivering those missions within scope, cost,
and schedule requirements.
The recommendation provides strong support for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation. The Committee recognizes the NNSA's
responsiveness in refining its nonproliferation strategies to
meet the changing geopolitical environment and to improve the
effectiveness of its programs in targeting the greatest
threats. The recommendation provides no new funds for projects
in Russia and the Committee awaits submission of a Secretarial
waiver for nonproliferation work with the Russian Federation
should such activities be determined to be in the national
security interest by the Secretary of Energy. The Committee
continues to view the NNSA's programs as important for reducing
international dangers to U.S. national security posed by the
proliferation of nuclear technologies to other nation states
and the threat of nuclear terrorism, rather than focused on
domestic security activities that are the responsibility of
other agencies.
The Committee also strongly supports the activities to
maintain our country's nuclear naval fleet, which is funded
through the Naval Reactors account. The recommendation
continues to prioritize the multi-year development needs of the
Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement reactor
program. The Committee greatly appreciates the service of the
members of our country's Armed Forces and will continue to
place the highest priority on support for them and their work.
Investments in Infrastructure
The water resource infrastructure funded by the
recommendation is a critical component of ensuring a robust
national economy and of supporting American competitiveness in
international markets. The Army Corps of Engineers is
responsible for keeping our federal waterways open for
business. The Corps also has been instrumental in reducing the
risk of flooding for public safety, businesses, and much of
this country's food-producing lands. The Bureau of Reclamation
supplies reliable water to approximately ten percent of this
country's population and to much of its fertile agricultural
lands. Both agencies make significant contributions to national
electricity production through hydropower facilities.
The U.S. marine transportation industry supports
$2,000,000,000,000 in commerce and creates employment for more
than 13 million people. As the agency responsible for our
nation's federal waterways, the Army Corps of Engineers
maintains 926 ports and 25,000 miles of commercial channels
serving 41 states. The maintenance of these commercial
waterways is directly tied to the ability of this country to
ship its manufactured and bulk products, as well as to compete
with the ports of neighboring countries for the business of
ships arriving from around the world. These waterways handled
foreign commerce valued at more than $1,774,000,000,000 in 2012
alone. As a primary supporter of America's waterway
infrastructure, the Corps is ensuring that the nation has the
tools to maintain a competitive edge in the global market. This
recommendation makes key changes to the budget request to
ensure that the Corps has the necessary tools to continue to
support America's shipping infrastructure.
The flood protection infrastructure that the Corps builds
or maintains reduces the risk of flooding to people,
businesses, and other public infrastructure investments. In
fact, Corps projects prevented damages of $13,400,000,000 in
2013 alone. Between 1928 and 2013, each inflation-adjusted
dollar invested in these projects prevented $7.92 in damages.
The properties and investments protected by the Corps
infrastructure would often be flooded without that
infrastructure, destroying homes, businesses, and many valuable
acres of cropland.
The Bureau of Reclamation's water infrastructure is a
critical component of the agricultural productivity of this
country. These facilities deliver water to one of every five
western farmers resulting in approximately 10 million acres of
irrigated land that produces 60 percent of the nation's
vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. Additionally,
these facilities deliver water to more than 31 million people
for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Without these dams
and water supply facilities, American agricultural producers in
the West would not be able to access reliable, safe water for
their families and their businesses and many municipal and
industrial users would face critical water shortages.
The Corps and Reclamation are the nation's largest and
second largest producers of hydropower, respectively. Combined
these federal hydropower facilities generate more than 112
billion kilowatt-hours, enough to power more than 10 million
homes, annually. Gross revenues from the sale of this power
reach nearly $6,000,000,000 annually.
National Energy Policy
In 2012 the President unveiled an ``all of the above''
energy strategy designed to take advantage and utilize all
sources of American-made energy. Since that time, each budget
request has proposed increased funding for energy efficiency
and renewable energy at the expense of more reliable energy
sources. A true ``all of the above'' approach has to measure a
vision for the future against the practical realities of the
present. While investments in renewable energy are important
and vital to a coherent national energy policy, they represent
a fraction of the energy production in this country. Fossil and
nuclear sources provide nearly 85 percent of all electricity
generation in this nation. An energy policy that divests from
these sources plans for an unrealistic future.
The Administration's severe regulations on carbon pollution
from existing and new fossil-fueled electric power plants only
further the inconsistencies in the budget request's ``all of
the above'' approach. These regulatory actions and the
Administration's subsequent low prioritization of fossil energy
sources reveals a broken ``all of the above'' approach that the
Committee has to rebalance each year.
The Committee continues its long-standing support for the
investment of taxpayer funds across the spectrum of all energy
technologies. A national energy policy can only be successful
if it maintains stability and resiliency while planning for
long-term strategic goals of energy security, independence, and
prosperity for the nation. The Committee recommends a balanced
approach that focuses on improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of fossil fuels while also investing in the
latest technological breakthroughs of renewable fuel sources.
Committee Oversight Initiatives
The highest priority mission of any federal agency is to be
an effective steward of taxpayer dollars. Any waste, fraud, or
abuse of taxpayer dollars is unacceptable. The Committee uses
hearings, reviews by the Government Accountability Office, the
Committee on Appropriations' Surveys and Investigations staff,
and its annual appropriations Act, including the accompanying
report, to promote strong oversight of the agencies under its
jurisdiction, with an emphasis on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of
Energy.
The recommendation continues the Committee's responsibility
to conduct in-depth oversight into all activities funded in
this bill. Each agency shall designate a specific point of
contact to track each report required in the bill and ensure
its timely production and delivery.
A summary of the major oversight efforts in the bill is
provided below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency/Account Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Corps of Engineers................ Direction on Principles and
Guidelines
Army Corps of Engineers................ Brief on Legacy Studies
Army Corps of Engineers................ Direction on 333 waiver process
Army Corps of Engineers................ Direction on new Federal Flood
Risk Management Standard
Army Corps of Engineers................ Guidance on ratings systems for
allocating additional funds
Army Corps of Engineers................ Guidance on 2016 Work Plan
submission
Army Corps of Engineers................ Direction on prioritization of
ongoing studies
Army Corps of Engineers................ Direction on North Atlantic
Coast Comprehensive Study
Army Corps of Engineers................ Direction on New Starts
Army Corps of Engineers................ Brief on ``Remaining Items''
Army Corps of Engineers/Investigations. Report on Cano Martin Pena,
Puerto Rico
Army Corps of Engineers/Construction... Guidance on allocating
additional funding
Army Corps of Engineers/Mississippi Guidance on allocating
River and Tributaries. additional funding
Army Corps of Engineers/Mississippi Direction on Mississippi River
River and Tributaries. Commission funding
Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and Guidance on allocating
Maintenance. additional funding
Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and Direction Dredged Material
Maintenance. Disposal
Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and Report on Ririe Reservoir
Maintenance.
Army Corps of Engineers/Regulatory Guidance on Congressional
Program. interpretation of Clean Water
Act
Army Corps of Engineers/FUSRAP......... Guidance on investigation and
study at former Sylvania site
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses....... Report on Public-Private
Parnerships
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses....... Report on Flood Damage
Reduction Projects on Federal
Lands
Army Corps of Engineers/General Reprogramming requirements
Provisions.
Army Corps of Engineers/General Restriction on use of
Provisions. continuing contracts
Army Corps of Engineers/General Restriction on committing funds
Provisions. beyond appropriated amounts
Army Corps of Engineers/General Restriction on changing certain
Provisions. Clean Water Act definitions
Army Corps of Engineers/General Restriction on revising federal
Provisions. jurisdiction under the Clean
Water Act
Army Corps of Engineers/General Restriction on using funds to
Provisions. require permits for the
discharge of dredged material.
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Report on Ririe Reservoir
Resources.
Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Direction on CALFED feasibility
Resources. studies
Bureau of Reclamation/General Reprogramming requirements
Provisions.
Department of Energy................... Report on future years energy
program
Department of Energy................... Guidance on prior-year balances
greater than five years old
Department of Energy................... Report on cost audit coverage
Department of Energy................... Report on alleviation of
poverty
Department of Energy................... Guidance on Administration's
Yucca Mountain policy
Department of Energy................... Guidance on inclusion of
centers in future budget
justifications
Department of Energy................... Report on Office of Technology
Transitions
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency. Direction on funding incubator
programs
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency. Direction on developing list of
bioenergy technologies
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency. Report on list of bioenergy
technologies
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency. Direction on Solar Technologies
program funding
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency. Direction on hydrokinetic power
funding allocations
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency. Report on U.S. supply of
lithium
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency. Direction on building energy
codes
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency. Direction on ``smart home''
electronics study
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency. Report on Weatherization
Assistance Program
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency. Guidance on social cost of
carbon
Department of Energy/Electricity Report on energy security
Delivery.
Department of Energy/Electricity Report on EMP vulnerability
Delivery.
Department of Energy/Nuclear........... Direction to support an SMR
design award
Department of Energy/Nuclear........... Direction on ATR update
Department of Energy/Nuclear........... Report on spent fuel plans
Department of Energy/Fossil............ Guidance on coal research and
development
Department of Energy/Fossil............ Direction on interagency
research plan regarding
hydraulic fracturing
Department of Energy/Non-Defense Report on Mercury Export Ban
Environmental Cleanup. Act
Department of Energy/UED&D............. Report on uranium transfers
Department of Energy/Science........... Report on exascale computing
Department of Energy/Departmental Report on Working Capital Fund
Administration.
Department of Energy/Departmental Direction on renewable fuel
Administration. standards
Department of Energy/Departmental Direction on technical
Administration. assistance to Ukraine
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Guidance on definition of a
``life extension program''
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Direction on costs of the W88
life extension program
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Report on red team assessment
of alternatives
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Guidance on infrastructure
budget structure
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Report on RLWTF project root
causes
Department of Energy/Weapons........... Guidance on funding for UPF
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Guidance on new
Nonproliferation. nonproliferation projects in
Russia
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Direction on offsetting costs
Nonproliferation. associated with material
removal
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Report on Part 810 Process
Nonproliferation. Improvement Program
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors.... Direction on an update of
progress regarding ATR
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors.... Report on advanced fuel system
using LEU fuel
Department of Energy/Defense Report on Hanford site
Environmental Cleanup.
Department of Energy/Defense Report on IFDP
Environmental Cleanup.
Department of Energy/Other Defense Direction on Office of
Activities. Independent Enterprise
Assessments annual report
Department of Energy/Other Defense Report on Graded Security
Activities. Posture
Department of Energy/General Provision. Reprogramming requirements
Department of Energy/General Provision. Transfer authority
specifications
Department of Energy/General Provision. Prohibit funds for high hazard
nuclear facilities
construction unless cost
estimates have been developed.
Department of Energy/General Provision. Prohibit funds approving CD-2
and CD-3 without separate cost
estimates
Department of Energy/General Provision. Prohibit certain multi year
funding agreements in Office
of Science
Department of Energy/General Provision. Restriction of certain
activities in the Russian
Federation
Department of Energy/General Provision. Restriction of Strategic
Petroleum Reserve activities
and notification requirements.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Report on tank maintenance and
upgrade requirement at Hanford
and Savannah River.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Direction on allocation of any
reduction in available
resources
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Requirement for joint
management of salaries and
expenses
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Prohibition on terminating
programs without Commissioner
approval
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Notification requirement for
use of emergency functions
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Direction on Yucca Mountain
license application and
funding needs
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Semi-annual report on licensing
and regulatory activities
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Direction on reducing corporate
support
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Report on comprehensive
workforce review and strategic
plan
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Direction on rulemaking process
Independent Agencies/General Provision. Requirement for NRC to comply
with Congressional requests
General Provision...................... Prohibition on the use of funds
to influence congressional
action
General Provision...................... Consolidation of transfer
authorities
General Provision...................... Prohibition of funds in
contravention of Executive
Order 12898
General Provision...................... Prohibition on use of funds to
close Yucca Mountain
application process
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
INTRODUCTION
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act funds
the Civil Works missions of the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps). This program is responsible for activities in support
of coastal and inland navigation, flood and coastal storm
damage reduction, environmental protection and restoration,
hydropower, recreation, water supply, and disaster preparedness
and response. The Corps also performs regulatory oversight of
navigable waters. Approximately 23,000 civilians and almost 300
military personnel located in eight Division offices and 38
District offices work to carry out the Civil Works program.
FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Civil Works
program of the Corps of Engineers is $4,732,000,000, a decrease
of $722,500,000 from fiscal year 2015. After adjusting for the
rescission of $28,000,000 of prior-year appropriations in the
fiscal year 2015 Act, the budget request represents a reduction
from fiscal year 2015 of $750,500,000 (-14%). Each of the four
main project-based accounts would see a sharp decrease under
the budget request. The Construction account would see the
largest dollar reduction (-$467,489,000) and largest percentage
reduction (-29%). The Investigations, Mississippi River and
Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance accounts are reduced
by 20, 26, and 7 percent, respectively.
Once again the Administration's claims to understand the
importance of infrastructure ring hollow when it comes to water
resource infrastructure investments. Under the budget request,
funding for both navigation and flood and storm damage
reduction--the Committee's two highest priorities for the
Corps' Civil Works program--is decreased significantly (-16 and
-20 percent, respectively). Within the navigation mission area,
the budget request proposes to reduce funding for activities
eligible for reimbursement from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund by $190,000,000 from fiscal year 2015. Capital
improvements funded in part from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund are reduced by $49,000,000 from fiscal year 2015. Funding
for flood and storm damage reduction activities at each stage
of the process--studies, construction, and operation and
maintenance--would be reduced below fiscal year 2015 if the
budget request were enacted.
Once again, however, the Committee rejects the low priority
placed on infrastructure in the budget request. Instead, the
Committee allocates $810,046,000 above the budget request for
additional investments in navigation and flood and storm damage
reduction improvements.
DEEP-DRAFT NAVIGATION
The Committee remains mindful of the evolving
infrastructure needs of the nation's ports. Meeting these
needs--including deeper drafts to accommodate the move towards
larger ships--will be essential if the nation is to remain
competitive in international markets and to continue advancing
economic development and job creation domestically.
Investigations and construction of port projects, including
the deepening of existing projects, are cost-shared between the
federal government and non-federal sponsors, often local or
regional port authorities. The operation and maintenance of
these projects are federal responsibilities and are funded as
reimbursements from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF),
which is supported by an ad valorem tax on the value of
imported and domestic cargo. Expenditures from the trust fund
are subject to annual appropriations. The balance in the HMTF
by the beginning of fiscal year 2016 is estimated to be
approximately $8,989,000,000.
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of
2014 included target annual appropriations levels for use of
HMTF receipts. The Committee remains committed to providing the
maximum practicable amount of funding for HMTF-reimbursable
activities consistent with annual allocations and after
evaluating funding requirements for other priority activities
within the Civil Works program.
For fiscal year 2016, the Committee provides an estimated
$1,178,000,000 for HMTF-related activities, an increase of
$73,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $263,000,000 above the
budget request. This substantial increase should allow the
Corps to make progress on the backlog of dredging needs.
INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM
The nation's inland waterways system--consisting of
approximately 12,000 miles of commercially navigable channels
and 236 lock chambers--also is essential to supporting the
national economy. Freight transported on the inland waterways
system includes a significant portion of the nation's grain
exports, domestic petroleum and petroleum products, and coal
used in electricity generation. Much of the physical
infrastructure of the system is aging, however, and in need of
improvements. For example, commercial navigation locks
typically have a design life of 50 years, yet nearly 60 percent
of these locks in the United States are more than 50 years old,
with the average age at almost 60 years old.
Capital improvements to the inland waterways system
generally are funded 50 percent from the General Treasury and
50 percent from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), while
operation and maintenance costs are funded 100 percent from the
General Treasury. The IWTF is supported by a tax on barge fuel.
In recent years, the increasing rehabilitation and
reconstruction needs and the escalating costs of those projects
have far outstripped available revenues in the IWTF. Two
statutory changes enacted last year, however, will lead to the
availability of additional revenues to stand as the required
cost-share for some additional work on the inland waterways
system. These changes were the reduction in the portion of the
costs of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project that is to be
derived from the IWTF to 15 percent and the increase in the
fuel tax to $0.29 per gallon from $0.20 per gallon.
It should be noted that funds from both the General
Treasury and the IWTF are counted under overall discretionary
spending limits, which remain relatively flat from fiscal year
2015. Nevertheless, for fiscal year 2016, the Committee
provides appropriations making use of all estimated annual
revenues from the IWTF. This funding includes the budget
request of $232,000,000 for construction of the Olmsted Locks
and Dam project and the Locks 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River
project, as well as $108,000,000 above the budget request for
additional capital improvements to the inland waterways system.
The Committee also allocates $42,000,000 above the budget
request for additional operation and maintenance activities on
the inland waterways.
PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS
Concerns persist that the effort to update the Water
Resources Principles and Guidelines did not proceed consistent
with the language or intent of section 2031 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007. No funds provided to the
Corps of Engineers shall be used to develop or implement rules
or guidance to support implementation of the final Principles
and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources
released in March 2013 or the final Interagency Guidelines
released in December 2014. The Corps shall continue to use the
document dated March 10, 1983, and entitled ``Economic and
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related
Land Resources Implementation Studies'' during the fiscal year
period covered by the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for 2016.
The Corps has been working diligently on assessing the
impacts of the revised Principles and Requirements and
Interagency Guidelines on the Civil Works program, consistent
with congressional direction provided in the explanatory
statement accompanying the fiscal year 2015 Act. The Committee
looks forward to being briefed on this assessment in the near
future. After an opportunity to review the assessment, the
Committee may have further directions on this issue.
PLANNING MODERNIZATION
The Committee remains strongly supportive of efforts to
reduce the length of time and the funding required to complete
studies while maintaining quality analysis and an appropriate
level of information for congressional authorization and
funding decisions. The Committee is aware that multiple
studies, termed Legacy Studies, were rightly not required to
transition to the new SMART planning process. The Corps shall
be prepared to brief the Committee not later than 60 days after
the enactment of this Act on the status of the Legacy Studies,
including a schedule for bringing each study to completion.
North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study Focus Areas.--
Several of the nine identified focus areas, including the three
areas proposed for funding in fiscal year 2016, involve
geographic scopes and levels of complexity not seen in the
typical Corps study. As such, confining these studies to the
standard 3x3x3 planning restrictions for time and cost is not
advisable. Rather than starting with the attempt to meet these
arbitrary timing and funding goals and requesting waivers at
the end of the study process, the Corps is directed to evaluate
each focus area expeditiously to determine the appropriate
scope, schedule, and cost, without the initial time and cost
limits of the 3x3x3 process.
FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD
On January 30, 2015, the President issued Executive Order
13690 establishing a new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
and amending Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management). The
Administration describes it as furtherance of the President's
Climate Action Plan and as building on the work done by the
interagency task force in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.
The Committee has heard numerous concerns about the new
standard from many potentially-affected stakeholders. These
concerns include the process by which the standard was
developed, the lack of clarity as to which specific programs
and activities will be affected, and the uncertainty related to
how each agency will implement the new standard. The Committee
takes these concerns seriously and will continue to closely
monitor the Administration's activities related to this new
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard.
The new standard and draft revised guidelines for
implementing Executive Order 11988 are currently out for public
comment until early May 2015. Executive Order 13690 directs
each agency to issue or amend existing regulations and
procedures to comply with the order and to submit to the
National Security Council staff within 30 days of the closing
of the public comment period for the revised guidelines an
implementation plan that contains milestones and a timeline for
implementation of the executive order and the standard. The
Corps is directed to submit this implementation plan to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not
later than 3 days after it has been submitted to the National
Security Council staff.
FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Historically, the Committee has encouraged the
Administration to provide five-year investment plans for all
the agencies within the Energy and Water Development
jurisdiction, particularly the Corps. The five-year plan should
be based on realistic assumptions of project funding needs. It
is the Committee's expectation that once projects have been
initiated, the Administration will request responsible annual
funding levels for them through completion.
The executive branch has traditionally been unwilling to
project five-year horizons for projects it has not previously
supported through the budget process. Comprehensive planning is
important for understanding future requirements of projects
that have been supported through the appropriations process, as
well. While this unwillingness to have a dialogue regarding
additional investment might be reasonable under circumstances
where there is no likelihood of additional investment, the
Congress consistently has supported additional investment in
the nation's water resource infrastructure. The uncertainty
caused by year-to-year federal planning leaves too many non-
federal sponsors unable to make informed decisions regarding
local funding.
It would be beneficial for the Congress, the
Administration, and project partners to have a comprehensive
plan to outline requirements for all projects that have
received an appropriation to date or are proposed to begin
receiving funding this year. The Committee continues to welcome
a dialogue to reach a mutually-agreeable way to comprehensively
plan for all initiated projects.
The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2014 the Corps was
directed to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the optimum
timeline and funding requirements to complete each of the
ongoing projects which received construction funding in any of
fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, but were not
slated by the Administration for construction funding in the
fiscal year 2014 budget request. This report was to have been
submitted not later than 90 days after the enactment of the
fiscal year 2014 Act. As of the writing of this report, the
Committee still has not received this information.
FORMAT OF FUNDING PRIORITIES
Traditionally, the President requested and the Congress
appropriated funds for the Civil Works program on a project-
level basis. Taken together, however, these funding decisions
indicated programmatic priorities and policy preferences. As
with non-project-based programs, the Congress at times
disagreed with the priorities stated in the President's budget
request and made its priorities known in appropriations bills.
Final federal government priorities were established in Acts
passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed by the
President.
On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to
prohibit congressional earmarks, as defined in House rule XXI.
That definition encompasses project-level funding not requested
by the President. Following that vote, the Committee reviewed
the historical format of appropriations for the Corps to see if
there was a more transparent way to highlight programmatic
priorities without abandoning congressional oversight
responsibilities. The fiscal year 2012 Act included a
modification to the format used in previous years, and that
format is continued for fiscal year 2016. As in previous years,
the Committee lists in report tables the studies, projects, and
activities within each account requested by the President along
with the Committee-recommended funding level. To advance its
programmatic priorities, the Committee has included additional
funding for certain categories of projects. Project-specific
allocations within these categories will be determined by the
Corps based on further direction provided in this report.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK
As mentioned above, the budget request is woefully
inadequate for meeting the critical water resource
infrastructure needs of this nation. Numerous continuing
studies and construction projects will be suspended or slowed,
leaving many communities vulnerable to floods and coastal
storms longer than necessary and hindering economic growth and
international competitiveness. Underfunding operation and
maintenance of existing assets results in economic
inefficiencies and risks infrastructure failure, which can
cause substantial economic losses. For these reasons, the
Committee provides a total of $879,807,000 in additional
funding for ongoing work within the Investigations,
Construction, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation
and Maintenance accounts. This funding is for additional work
that either was not included in the Administration's request or
was inadequately budgeted. The executive branch retains
complete discretion over project-specific allocations of this
funding.
A project or study shall be eligible for additional funding
within the Investigations, Construction, and Mississippi River
and Tributaries accounts if: (1) it has received funding, other
than through a reprogramming, in at least one of the previous
three fiscal years; or (2) it was previously funded and could
reach a significant milestone or produce significant outputs in
fiscal year 2016. This eligibility includes reimbursements, as
authorized by law and consistent with statutory funding
limitations. None of the additional funding in any account may
be used for any item where funding was specifically denied; to
initiate new studies, projects, programs, or activities; to
alter any existing cost-share requirements; or for projects in
the Continuing Authorities Program.
Funding associated with each category may be allocated to
any eligible study or project, as appropriate, within that
category; funding associated with each subcategory may be
allocated only to eligible studies or projects, as appropriate,
within that subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant
to be exhaustive.
Transparency in the work plan development process.--The
Administration's continued lack of transparency in how work
plan allocation decisions are made is troubling. The
Committee's position on this issue has not changed from
previous years--a list of general factors and management
controls considered when making allocation decisions is not
sufficient as a response to congressional direction nor is it
sufficient explanation to federal taxpayers generally or local
sponsors interested in improving their projects'
competitiveness specifically.
The Committee expects considerable improvement in the
quality and detail of information provided in fiscal year 2016
regarding the allocation of these additional funds. To assist
the Administration in improving the transparency of the
process, the Committee reiterates its direction to the Corps to
develop ratings systems for use in evaluating projects for
allocation of the additional funding provided in this Act.
These evaluation systems may be, but are not required to be,
individualized for each account or for each category of
projects to be funded. The Corps retains complete control over
the methodology of these ratings systems, but shall consider
giving priority to the factors discussed under the heading
``Additional Funding for Ongoing Work'' within each relevant
account. Each study or project eligible to receive additional
funds shall be evaluated under the applicable ratings system; a
study or project may not be excluded from evaluation under
these ratings systems for being ``inconsistent with
Administration policy.'' The Corps is reminded that these funds
are in addition to the Administration's budget request.
Administration budget metrics shall not be a reason to
disqualify a study or project from being funded.
Work plan.--Not later than 60 days after the enactment of
this Act, the Corps shall provide to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a work plan including
the following information: (1) a detailed description of the
ratings system(s) developed and used to evaluate studies and
projects; (2) delineation of how these funds are to be
allocated; (3) a summary of the work to be accomplished with
each allocation, including phase of work; and (4) a list of all
studies and projects that were considered eligible for funding
but did not receive funding, including an explanation of
whether the study or project could have used funds in fiscal
year 2016 and the specific reasons each study or project was
considered as being less competitive for an allocation of
funds.
Full allocation of funds.--It is expected that all of the
additional funding provided will be allocated to specific
programs, projects, or activities. The focus of the allocation
process should favor the obligation of funds for work in fiscal
year 2016 rather than expenditures. With the significant
backlog of work in the Corps' inventory, there is absolutely no
reason for funds provided above the budget request to remain
unallocated.
NEW STARTS
The Committee considers very carefully the decision of
whether to provide funding for new starts each fiscal year.
After three consecutive fiscal years with no new starts, the
fiscal years 2014 and 2015 Acts allowed the Corps to initiate a
limited number of new studies and new construction projects. In
each year, the Corps was required to submit an out-year funding
scenario to demonstrate the affordability of the new
construction starts selected and the impact these selections
would have on other ongoing construction projects.
Unfortunately, in both years the Administration submitted an
analysis that fell far short of what was required. Due to the
significant uncertainty remaining about the impact of recently
initiated projects, the Committee recommends no new starts in
any account in fiscal year 2016. The Corps is directed to
prioritize ongoing studies and projects in an effort to
complete them.
One exception to this restriction on new starts is the
proposed Disposition of Completed Projects line item within the
Investigations account. This item funds study efforts intended
to reduce federal responsibilities, rather than study efforts
that will result in new federal projects added to the existing
backlog of construction and operation and maintenance projects.
Therefore, the Committee believes an exception is appropriate
and has included funding for this line item.
North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study Focus Areas.--The
budget request proposed a single line item intended to fund
feasibility activities for three focus areas identified in the
North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study issued in January
2015. This line item was identified as a new start in the
budget request since the initial work--the Comprehensive
Study--was funded in the supplemental appropriations Act
following Hurricane Sandy. While the Corps' restraint in this
instance is appreciated, the Committee believes it is
unnecessary. Funding is included for the three focus areas as
separate and individual feasibility studies. The Corps is
directed to maintain this characterization (individual, ongoing
activities) when making future funding decisions for study
activities for these three focus areas, as well as the other
six focus areas identified in the Comprehensive Study.
Definition of a New Start.--The change in funding format
prompted by the prohibition on congressional earmarks has
resulted in greater significance for the Administration's
definition of a new start. Unfortunately, the Administration
has been less than transparent with the Committee on this issue
as well. Without this information, the Committee's ability to
assert its prerogative as to whether specific projects are new
starts or ongoing projects is seriously limited. Therefore, the
Administration is directed to submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 30
days after the enactment of this Act its definition of a new
start, including any relevant guidelines or criteria used to
make project-specific determinations. The Administration is
reminded that no new start shall be required when moving from
the feasibility phase to the preconstruction engineering and
design (PED) phase.
ELIMINATING DUPLICATION
The budget request includes numerous line items under
``Remaining Items'' in the Investigations and Operation and
Maintenance accounts. The budget justifications for several of
these items seem to describe similar activities, thereby
raising the question of whether these activities are truly
distinct or whether overlapping or duplicative missions are
leading to inefficiencies within the agency. The Corps is
directed to be prepared to brief the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 30
days after the enactment of this Act on whether the agency
believes that each line item under ``Remaining Items'' is
appropriate as a separate line item or whether some line items
could be combined to eliminate overlapping or duplicative
activities.
ASIAN CARP
The threat of Asian Carp to the Great Lakes remains a
concern for the Committee. The Army Corps of Engineers
continues to play a critical role in preventing, controlling,
and managing the threat of Asian carp. The Committee expects
the Corps to expedite authorized actions related to Asian Carp,
in particular the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin
Study (GLMRIS) Brandon Road study. The Corps recently
transferred management of the study to the Rock Island
District. While this transfer may have been warranted, the
Committee has not yet received a comprehensive explanation as
to how this transfer will ensure the study will be executed
efficiently and expeditiously.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING
To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2016
is consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the
movement of funds, and to improve overall budget execution, the
bill carries a legislative provision outlining the
circumstances under which the Corps of Engineers may reprogram
funds.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $5,596,750,000 for the Corps of
Engineers, $142,250,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $864,750,000
above the budget request.
A table summarizing the fiscal year 2015 enacted
appropriation, the fiscal year 2016 budget request, and the
Committee-recommended levels is provided below:
(Dollars in thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 FY 2016
Account enacted request Cmte. rec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations.................................................. $122,000 $97,000 $110,000
Construction.................................................... 1,639,489 1,172,000 1,631,000
Mississippi River and tributaries............................... 302,000 225,000 275,000
Operation and maintenance....................................... 2,908,511 2,710,000 3,058,000
Regulatory program.............................................. 200,000 205,000 200,000
FUSRAP.......................................................... 101,500 104,000 104,000
Flood control and coastal emergencies........................... 28,000 34,000 34,000
Expenses........................................................ 178,000 180,000 180,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works... 3,000 5,000 4,750
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, Program Level.................................... 5,482,500 4,732,000 5,596,750
Rescission...................................................... -28,000 - - - - - -
-----------------------------------------------
NET APPROPRIATION, Corps of Engineers--Civil............ 5,454,500 4,732,000 5,596,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriation, 2015................................... $122,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 97,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 110,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... -12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +13,000,000
This appropriation funds studies to determine the need for,
the engineering and economic feasibility of, and the
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and
related land resource problems; preconstruction engineering and
design; data collection; interagency coordination; and
research.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $110,000,000,
$12,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $13,000,000 above the
budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Canno Martin Penna, Puerto Rico.--The Corps is directed to
report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act
on how this project is, or is not, consistent with current law
and policy regarding hazardous and toxic materials.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the
Title I front matter of this report. While this additional
funding is shown in the feasibility column, the Corps should
use these funds in both feasibility and PED, as applicable.
When developing the rating system(s) for use in allocating
additional funds under this account, the Corps shall consider
giving priority to completing or accelerating ongoing studies
that: (1) will enhance the nation's economic development, job
growth, and international competitiveness; (2) are for projects
located in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters;
or (3) are for projects to address legal requirements. The
executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology
of the ratings system(s) and project-specific allocation
decisions within the additional funds provided.
Research and Development, Additional Topics.--Within the
funds provided, and in accordance with the amount requested for
each mission area, the Corps is encouraged to consider
conducting work on the following topics:
1. The impact of reduced lock operations on endangered,
threatened, and game fish species in low-use waterways and
effective mitigation methods. The Committee has heard concerns
that a reduction in or elimination of navigational lock
operations is having a negative impact on the ability of some
endangered, threatened, and game fish species to migrate
through waterways, particularly during critical spawning
periods. The Committee is aware that the Corps has collaborated
with other federal agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife
Service, on two research initiatives that would provide a good
foundation for this additional research effort.
2. Urban flood damage reduction and stream restoration in
arid regions. Previous work in this area included the
development of tools and technologies for stakeholders,
including Corps District personnel, other federal agencies,
state and local governments, and flood control districts. It
also demonstrated the application of new and innovative
techniques, models, and methods to arid and semi-arid regions.
Research and Development, Partnerships.--The budget request
includes funding for work on controlling invasive aquatic
species throughout our nations waterways, including the
Columbia River Basin. The Corps is encouraged to utilize local
and regional research partners, as appropriate, when conducting
work to address this serious issue.
Budgeting for Tribal Areas.--Tribal communities located in
remote areas that experience severe weather-related conditions
jeopardizing public safety and health face a significant
disadvantage under the Corps' utilization of benefit-cost
ratios in its budgeting process. The Committee encourages the
Corps to examine ways that federal trust and treaty obligations
and the need to protect public safety and health in severe
weather situations could be better incorporated into
determining budget priorities.
CONSTRUCTION
Appropriation, 2015................................... $1,639,489,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 1,172,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 1,631,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... -8,489,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +459,000,000
This appropriation funds construction, major
rehabilitation, and related activities for water resource
projects whose principal purpose is to provide commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, or aquatic
ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. Portions of this
account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$1,631,000,000, $8,489,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$459,000,000 above the budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Success Dam, California.--The Committee notes that in 2003
a project was initiated to increase the reservoir capacity,
primarily for flood control but also for irrigation water
storage. The project has been on hold for more than a decade
due to seismic and seepage concerns, which have now been
addressed. The drought in California continues to demonstrate
the importance of and need for expanding water storage capacity
to capture water during wet years for use in dry years. The
non-federal sponsors remain very interested in continuing
implementation of the project. The Committee urges the Corps to
move expeditiously to resolve remaining hydrologic concerns and
to update, as necessary, documents related to the project to
increase reservoir capacity so that the project can finally be
completed.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Florida.--The
Committee is aware that the Corps currently is engaging a
public process to update the Integrated Delivery System (IDS).
The Committee encourages the Corps to include the Big Cypress-
L-28 Interceptor Modifications Project into the updated IDS.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the
Title I front matter of this report. Of the additional funds
provided in this account, the Corps shall allocate not less
than $12,450,000 to projects with riverfront development
components. Of the additional funds provided in this account
for flood and storm damage reduction and flood control, the
Corps shall allocate not less than $18,000,000 to additional
nonstructural flood control projects. When developing the
rating system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under
this account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to the
following:
(1) benefits of the funded work to the national economy;
(2) extent to which the work will enhance national,
regional, or local economic development;
(3) number of jobs created directly by the funded activity;
(4) ability to obligate the funds allocated within the
fiscal year, including consideration of the ability of the non-
federal sponsor to provide any required cost-share;
(5) ability to complete the project, separable element,
project phase, or useful increment of work with the funds
allocated;
(6) for flood and storm damage reduction projects,
--the population, economic activity, or public
infrastructure at risk, as appropriate; and
--the severity of risk of flooding or the frequency
with which an area has experienced flooding;
(7) for navigation projects, the number of jobs or level of
economic activity to be supported by completion of the project,
separable element, project phase, or useful increment of work;
(8) for Inland Waterways Trust Fund projects, the economic
impact on the local, regional, and national economy if the
project is not funded, as well as useful increments of work
that can be completed within the funding provided in this line
item; and
(9) for environmental infrastructure, projects with the
greater economic impact, projects in rural communities, and
projects in counties or parishes with high poverty rates.
The executive branch retains complete discretion over
methodology of the ratings system(s) and project-specific
allocation decisions within the additional funds provided.
The Committee is aware that the Corps is developing a
report describing a 20-year program for making capital
investments on the inland and intracoastal waterways, pursuant
to section 2002(d) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014. This report is due to be
submitted to Congress in June 2015. The Committee requires an
opportunity to review any new report prior to the Corps
incorporating any part of the report into funding decisions.
Therefore, when allocating the fiscal year 2016 additional
funding provided in this account for Inland Waterways Trust
Fund Projects, the Corps shall not use the report being
developed pursuant to WRRDA. The Corps shall continue to use,
as appropriate, the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS)
Capital Projects Business Model, Final Report published on
April 13, 2010, as the applicable 20-year plan.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Funding is provided for
watercraft inspection stations, as authorized by section 1039
of WRRDA 2014.
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).--The Committee
continues to support all sections of the Continuing Authorities
Program. Funding is provided for eight CAP sections at a total
of $23,750,000, an increase of $20,250,000 above the budget
request, which proposed funding for only four sections. This
program provides a useful tool for the Corps to undertake small
localized projects without the lengthy study and authorization
process typical of most larger Corps projects. The management
of the Continuing Authorities Program should continue
consistent with direction provided in previous fiscal years,
except that the Chief shall no longer be required to submit
annual reports on the backlog of projects.
Continuing Authorities Program, Extraordinary
Circumstances.--The Committee urges the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works) to review past projects with
extraordinary circumstances to determine whether exceptions to
policy are reasonable and advisable, including when
implementing section 1030 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
Appropriation, 2015................................... $302,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 225,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 275,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... -27,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +50,000,000
This appropriation funds planning, construction, and
operation and maintenance activities associated with projects
to reduce flood damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial
valley below Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $275,000,000,
$27,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000 above the
budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Lower Mississippi River Main Stem.--The budget request
proposes to consolidate several activities across multiple
states into one line item. The Committee does not support this
change and instead continues to fund these activities as
separate line items.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the
Title I front matter of this report. While this additional
funding is shown under remaining items, the Corps should use
these funds in investigations, construction, and operation and
maintenance, as applicable. When developing the rating
system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under this
account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to completing
or accelerating ongoing work that (1) will enhance the region
and nation's economic development, job growth, and
international competitiveness; or (2) is for projects located
in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. The
executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology
of the ratings system(s) and project-specific allocation
decisions within the additional funds provided.
Mississippi River Commission.--No funding is provided for
this new line item. The Corps is directed to continue funding
the costs of the commission from within the funds provided for
activities within the Mississippi River and Tributaries
project.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Appropriation, 2015................................... $2,908,511,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 2,710,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 3,058,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +149,489,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +348,000,000
This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and
related activities at water resource projects the Corps
operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of
dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other
facilities as authorized in various River and Harbor, Flood
Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. Related
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of
completed projects, removal of sunken vessels, and the
collection of domestic, waterborne commerce statistics.
Portions of this account are financed through the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$3,058,000,000, $149,489,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$348,000,000 above the budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Emerging Harbor Projects.--The recommendation includes
funding for individual projects defined as emerging harbor
projects (in section 210(f)(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1986) that exceeds the funding levels
envisioned in section 210(c)(3) and 210(d)(1)(ii) of WRDA 1986.
Great Lakes Navigation System.--The recommendation includes
funding for individual projects within this System that exceeds
the funding level envisioned in section 210(d)(1)(B)(ii) of
WRDA 1986.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps shall
allocate the additional funding provided in this account in
accordance with only the direction provided here and in the
Title I front matter of this report. When developing the rating
system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under this
account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to the
following:
(1) ability to complete ongoing work maintaining authorized
depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels, including
where contaminated sediments are present;
(2) ability to address critical maintenance backlog;
(3) presence of the U.S. Coast Guard;
(4) extent to which the work will enhance national,
regional, or local economic development, including domestic
manufacturing capacity;
(5) extent to which the work will promote job growth or
international competitiveness;
(6) number of jobs created directly by the funded activity;
(7) ability to obligate the funds allocated within the
fiscal year;
(8) ability to complete the project, separable element,
project phase, or useful increment of work within the funds
allocated;
(9) the risk of imminent failure or closure of the
facility; and
(10) for harbor maintenance activities,
--total tonnage handled;
--total exports;
--total imports;
--dollar value of cargo handled;
--energy infrastructure and national security needs
served;
--designation as strategic seaports;
--lack of alternative means of freight movement; and
--savings over alternative means of freight movement;
The executive branch retains complete discretion over
methodology of the ratings system(s) and project-specific
allocation decisions within the additional funds provided.
Small, Remote, or Subsistence Navigation.--Concerns persist
that the Administration's criteria for navigation maintenance
do not allow small, remote, or subsistence harbors and
waterways to properly compete for scarce navigation maintenance
funds. The Committee notes that the budget request for this
category of projects has increased over the past few years and
urges the Corps to continue this effort to provide a reasonable
and equitable allocation under this account.
Water Operations Technical Support (WOTS).--Funding in
addition to the budget request is included to continue research
into atmospheric rivers first funded in fiscal year 2015.
Dredged Material Disposal.--The Corps is directed to review
its policies regarding dredged material disposal to determine
whether these policies continue to be the most appropriate
given changing economic and environmental realities. The review
shall include, at a minimum, policy limitations in the study
phase, including limitations on analyzing confined disposal
facilities not yet in operation, even if use of those
facilities would save the Federal government money over the
long term; the sequencing of dredged material disposal sites
and individual project efforts; cost share policies, including
the roles and responsibilities relative to non-Federal
sponsors; changing environmental considerations, including any
challenges to the Federal standard for in-water disposal; and
long-term capacity concerns, including any increases due to
anticipated harbor improvements. In conducting this review, the
Corps shall solicit and incorporate the views of interested
stakeholders and other parties independent of the
Administration. The Secretary shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than nine
months after the enactment of this Act a report describing the
results of this review, including detailed recommendations for
any changes to Federal dredged material disposal policies
necessary to responsibly address the maintenance of Federal
navigation channels.
Ririe Reservoir, Idaho.--The Committee appreciates the
cooperation to date of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation to allow limited increases in the amount of water
carried over through the winter flood season without increasing
flood risk. Water users are interested in additional winter
water storage, however, but the potential paths forward are not
clear. The Corps and Reclamation are directed to work together
to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress not later than 21 days after the enactment of this Act
a single report describing options the water users could pursue
for additional water carryover. The report should detail for
each option the roles and responsibilities of each federal
agency as well as the water users, including funding
requirements, process challenges to be addressed, an
approximate schedule through implementation, any policy or
statutory changes necessary, and other relevant information the
water users would need to make an informed decision on whether
and how they might wish to proceed.
Hopper dredges.--The Water Resources Development Act of
1996 directed the Secretary to initiate a program to increase
the use of private industry hopper dredges for the construction
and maintenance of federal navigation channels and to develop
and implement procedures to ensure that private industry hopper
dredge capacity is available to meet both routine and time-
sensitive dredging needs. The Committee notes that this
``industry first'' policy has worked well, with private
industry increasing capacity by commissioning new hopper
dredges and with the Corps instituting ``raise the flag''
procedures for time-sensitive situations. The Committee
encourages the Corps to maintain the federal commitment to the
``industry first'' policy, including by scheduling the federal
hopper dredges in ready reserve status for only the number of
routine testing days necessary to ensure the ability of the
vessel to perform urgent and emergency work.
Navigation safety and efficiency.--Modifications to deep
draft high commercial use channels, including bends and
entrances, are sometimes necessary to ensure safety of
navigation and efficient operations. The Corps is strongly
encouraged to use existing authorities, such as 33 U.S.C. 562,
or to make recommendations for appropriate new or modified
authorizations to address such safety and efficiency issues in
a timely manner.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriation, 2015................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 205,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 200,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -5,000,000
This appropriation provides funds to administer laws
pertaining to the regulation of activities affecting U.S.
waters, including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and
Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act, and the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
Appropriated funds are used to review and process permit
applications, ensure compliance on permitted sites, protect
important aquatic resources, and support watershed planning
efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation with
states and local communities.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000,
the same as fiscal year 2015 and $5,000,000 below the budget
request. The funding increase proposed in the budget request is
described as necessary to support Clean Water Act rulemaking
activities and rule implementation related to proposed
revisions to the definition of waters of the United States.
Since the Committee includes legislative language prohibiting
the Corps from carrying out these activities, the associated
funding increase is unnecessary. The funding provided is
therefore sufficient to maintain, at a minimum, staffing needs
and scientific and technological support for traditional
program activities such as processing permit applications and
conducting the work necessary to reissue the Nationwide permits
in 2017.
In fiscal year 2014 and again in fiscal year 2015, the
Committee raised a concern with the Corps' changed
interpretation of Clean Water Act requirements related to the
identification of a specified end-user. Congress rejected the
new interpretation. Unfortunately, the Committee continues to
hear concerns on this issue. The Committee again directs the
Corps to ensure that all field offices adhere in all instances
to the interpretations directed by the Congress. The previous
direction is repeated here for emphasis and clarity.
The Committee is aware of at least two recent instances in
which local economic development organizations have applied for
permits to prepare sites to attract new economic activity but
the Corps has denied or otherwise frustrated those efforts.
Although the local organizations have established precedent by
providing several examples of where similar applications were
approved, the Corps now claims its regulations require the
identification of a specified end-user of a proposed
development so it can review final design plans and other exact
specifications of the proposed development in order to issue a
permit. The Committee strongly rejects this new interpretation
of Clean Water Act requirements. The Corps is not a local land-
use planning agency, and the Clean Water Act provides neither
the directive nor the authority for the Corps to assume such
responsibilities. The Committee encourages the Corps to work
with these permit applicants, and any others with similar
applications, to reach a better balance between allowing
desperately needed economic development while still
safeguarding important environmental resources.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Appropriation, 2015................................... $101,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 104,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 104,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +2,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level
radioactive materials and mixed wastes located at sites
contaminated as a result of the nation's early efforts to
develop atomic weapons.
The Congress transferred the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) from the Department of Energy
to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In appropriating
FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee intended
to transfer only the responsibility for administration and
execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP sites where the
Department had not completed cleanup. The Committee did not
transfer to the Corps ownership of and accountability for real
property interests, which remain with the Department. The
Committee expects the Department to continue to provide its
institutional knowledge and expertise to ensure the success of
this program and to serve the nation and the affected
communities.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $104,000,000,
$2,500,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the request.
The Committee continues to support the prioritization of sites,
especially those that are nearing completion. Within the funds
provided in accordance with the budget request, the Corps is
directed to complete the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study of the former Sylvania nuclear fuel site at Hicksville,
New York, and, as appropriate, to proceed expeditiously to a
Record of Decision and initiation of any necessary remediation
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Appropriation, 2015................................... $28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 34,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 34,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
This appropriation funds planning, training, and other
measures that ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond to
floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and to support
emergency operations in response to such natural disasters,
including advance measures, flood fighting, emergency
operations, the provision of potable water on an emergency
basis, and the repair of certain flood and storm damage
reduction projects.
The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for this account,
$6,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget
request.
EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2015................................... $178,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 180,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 180,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
This appropriation funds the executive direction and
management of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the
Division Offices, and certain research and statistical
functions of the Corps of Engineers.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $180,000,000,
$2,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget
request.
The Committee reiterates direction provided in fiscal year
2015 regarding implementation of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014.
Public-Private Partnership Program.--The Committee is aware
of the strong support of many Members of the House of
Representatives for the public-private partnership (P3) program
authorized in section 5014 of WRRDA 2014. As part of its Civil
Works Transformation initiative, the Corps has been discussing
for several years the idea of public-private partnerships as a
project delivery tool to help sustain the performance of
existing infrastructure and construct new infrastructure more
quickly. Water resource projects are different from more
traditional P3 projects in key ways, however, and these issues
need to be addressed before a P3 program could be viable. The
Corps is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress not later than 60 days after the
enactment of this Act a report detailing any work to date on
developing public-private partnerships generally and on
implementing section 5014 specifically (including a schedule
for issuing implementation guidance). The report also shall
include a list of any demonstration projects being evaluated
and a detailed description of the goals, advances, and
remaining challenges for each such demonstration project.
Flood Damage Reduction Projects on Federal Lands.--The
Committee is aware that some locally owned and operated flood
damage reduction projects are located, at least in part, on
federal land. One such project is the R-616 levee, a portion of
which is physically located on Offutt Air Force Base. Local
entities can find it challenging to try to determine what
assistance might be available in situations involving multiple
federal agencies with multiple programs and authorities,
especially when property is owned by multiple entities. To help
minimize this challenge, the Corps is directed to submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not
later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act a report
describing existing programs, authorities, and funding options
available to assist local sponsors with existing flood damage
reduction projects located at least in part on federal land.
The report shall include overall programmatic findings, as well
as findings specific to the R-616 project. The Corps shall work
with the other relevant federal agencies to describe available
options specific to the R-616 project.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
Appropriation, 2015................................... $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 5,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 4,750,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +1,750,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -250,000
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
oversees the Civil Works budget and policy, whereas the Corps'
executive direction and management of the Civil Works program
are funded from the Expenses account.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,750,000,
$1,750,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $250,000 below the budget
request.
In the explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year
2015 Act, the Committee detailed serious concerns about the
breakdown in traditional roles and responsibilities between the
White House, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works (ASA(CW)), and the Corps headquarters.
Unfortunately, to date, the Committee has not noticed
significant improvements nor heard from the ASA(CW) regarding
steps taken to address the issues raised. The Committee eagerly
awaits that information.
The recommendation includes legislative language
restricting the availability of 75 percent of the funding
provided in this account until such time as at least 95 percent
of the additional funding provided in each account has been
allocated to specific programs, projects, or activities. As of
the writing of this report--almost three months after the
initial work plan submission--a significant portion of the
additional funding provided in fiscal year 2015 remains
unallocated, including 39 percent of the Investigations funding
and 22 percent of the Construction funding. The Administration
has not shown any sense of urgency to allocate this remaining
funding even after repeated inquiries from this Committee. The
legislative provision is intended to impress upon the
Administration the importance the Committee places on the
prudent and expeditious allocation of additional funding
provided in fiscal year 2016.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the
obligation or expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of
funds in this title except in certain circumstances.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds
in this Act to carry out any contract that commits funds beyond
the amounts appropriated for that program, project, or
activity.
The bill continues a provision authorizing the transfer of
funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate for
fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers projects.
The bill makes permanent a provision prohibiting funds from
being used to develop or implement changes to certain
definitions for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds from being
used to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction
under the Clean Water Act.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds
to require permits for the discharge of dredged or fill
material for certain agriculture activities. Identical language
was included in the fiscal year 2015 Act. As articulated in
report language in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the Committee
has been concerned that the Corps has changed its
interpretation of the Clean Water Act to significantly reduce
the application of the statutory exemptions included in the
Act. Since the Corps made no improvements to implementation in
response to the report language, the Committee included
statutory language in the fiscal year 2015 Act to prohibit the
Corps from requiring permits for the specified activities
without exception. Unfortunately the Administration
misinterpreted that language, as well, and issued
implementation guidance asserting that the fiscal year 2015 Act
language simply reinforced current practice. The Corps is
directed to implement the provision in this bill as it is
intended--as a complete prohibition on requiring permits for
the specified activities; the so-called ``recapture provision''
shall not apply to these activities.
The bill contains a provision allowing the possession of
firearms at water resources development projects under certain
circumstances.
The bill includes a provision regarding certain dredged
material disposal activities.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2015................................... $9,874,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 7,300,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 9,874,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +2,574,000
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central
Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in
that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for
carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The Committee recommendation includes a total of $9,874,000
for the Central Utah Project Completion Account, which includes
$7,574,000 for Central Utah Project construction, $1,000,000
for transfer to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Commission, and $1,300,000 for necessary
expenses of the Secretary of the Interior. This appropriation
is the same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,574,000 above the budget
request.
Bureau of Reclamation
INTRODUCTION
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is
to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in
an environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public. Since its establishment by the
Reclamation Act of 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has
developed water supply facilities that have contributed to
sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life in
the western states. Lands and communities served by Reclamation
projects have been developed to meet agricultural, tribal,
urban, and industrial needs. Reclamation continues to develop
authorized facilities to store and convey new water supplies
and is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17
western states. Reclamation maintains 337 reservoirs with the
capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of water.
As Reclamation's large impoundments and appurtenant
facilities reach their design life, the projected cost of
operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating Reclamation
infrastructure continues to grow, yet Reclamation has not
budgeted funding sufficient to implement a comprehensive
program to reduce its maintenance backlog. At the same time,
Reclamation is increasingly relied upon to provide water supply
to federally-recognized Indian tribes through water
settlements, rural communities through its Title I Rural Water
Program, and municipalities through its Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse Program. Balancing these competing
priorities will be challenging and requires active
participation and leadership on the part of Reclamation and its
technical staff.
WESTERN DROUGHT
Extensive and exceptional drought continues to plague the
Western United States. The U.S. Drought Monitor for March 31,
2015, shows that Montana is the only Reclamation state that is
virtually drought free. All or significant portions of eleven
Reclamation states are suffering from severe to exceptional
drought. California has entered a fourth consecutive year of
drought.
Drought conditions are difficult to address at the time the
drought is occurring, but there are some things that can be
done to stretch available water supplies. The Bureau of
Reclamation and the Department of the Interior are encouraged
to use all of the flexibility and tools available to mitigate
the impacts of this drought.
The only way to mitigate the effects of future droughts,
however, is through a strategy of providing a combination of
additional storage, improved conveyance, and increased
efficiencies in the uses of water both for agriculture and
potable purposes. As the West has consistently been the fastest
growing part of the country, it is incumbent on Reclamation, as
the leading water purveyor in the West, to lead the way in
increasing the water that is available from one year to the
next and to research and develop more efficient uses of the
water that is available.
California.--The Committee notes that, with last year's
passage of California's Proposition 1, the California Water
Commission is expected to begin in early 2017 allocating
$2,700,000,000 in funding for the public benefits of water
storage projects. Reclamation, in consultation with other
relevant federal agencies, is encouraged to review planned
activities, including schedules, to ensure that federal actions
do not needlessly inhibit the ability of local entities to
compete for these state funds.
FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation totals $1,098,668,000. The Committee recommendation
totals $1,094,668,000, $35,458,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$4,000,000 below the budget request.
A table summarizing the fiscal year 2015 enacted
appropriation, the fiscal year 2016 budget request, and the
Committee recommendation is provided below:
(Dollars in thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015 FY 2016
Account enacted request Cmte rec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Related Resources...... $978,131 $805,157 $948,640
Central Valley Project 56,995 49,528 49,528
Restoration Fund................
California Bay-Delta Restoration. 37,000 37,000 37,000
Policy and Administration........ 58,500 59,500 59,500
Indian Water Rights Settlements.. - - - 112,483 - - -
San Joaquin River Restoration - - - 35,000 - - -
Fund............................
--------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of 1,130,626 1,098,668 1,094,668
Reclamation.............
Rescission....................... -500 - - - - - -
--------------------------------------
Net Appropriation, Bureau 1,130,126 1,098,668 1,094,668
of Reclamation..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2015................................... $978,131,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 805,157,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 948,640,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... -29,491,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +143,483,000
The Water and Related Resources account supports the
development, construction, management, and restoration of water
and related natural resources in the 17 western states. The
account includes funds for operating and maintaining existing
facilities to obtain the greatest overall levels of benefits,
to protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to
improve the use of water and related natural resources.
For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends
$948,640,000, $29,491,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$143,483,000 above the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes in this account certain Indian Water
Rights Settlements proposed for funding under a separate
account in the President's budget request. No funding is
included for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, which the
President's request also proposed as a new separate account.
Adjusted for this change in account structure, the
recommendation is $4,000,000 below the budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.--The budget request
again proposes an account separate from the Water and Related
Resources account for discretionary funding of San Joaquin
River Restoration activities. As in past years, the Committee
includes this line item within the Water and Related Resources
account, although no funding is provided.
Indian Water Rights Settlements.--The budget request again
proposes a new appropriations account for five Indian water
rights settlements. As in prior fiscal years, however, the
Committee includes funding for these settlements in the Water
and Related Resources account.
Central Valley Project, San Luis Unit, California.--The
Committee is aware that Reclamation and the Western Area Power
Administration are evaluating the possible construction of a
transmission line to directly serve the San Luis Unit from the
Central Valley Project system as an alternative to receiving
service under the California Independent System Operator's
(CAISO) Tariff. If this alternative is selected, the agencies
are directed to work together and with the affected Central
Valley Project water contractors to ensure the most efficient
and cost-effective process for implementation.
Ririe Reservoir, Idaho.--The Committee appreciates the
cooperation to date of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps
of Engineers to allow limited increases in the amount of water
carried over through the winter flood season without increasing
flood risk. Water users are interested in additional winter
water storage, however, but the potential paths forward are not
clear. Reclamation and the Corps are directed to work together
to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress not later than 21 days after the enactment of this Act
a single report describing options the water users could pursue
for additional water carryover. The report should detail for
each option the roles and responsibilities of each federal
agency as well as the water users, including funding
requirements, process challenges to be addressed, an
approximate schedule through implementation, any policy or
statutory changes necessary, and other relevant information the
water users would need to make an informed decision on whether
and how they might wish to proceed.
Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.--Reclamation is
encouraged to continue working with the Tribes and relevant
Federal agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
the Indian Health Service, and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to coordinate use of all existing authorities
and funding sources to finish needed community system upgrades
and connections as quickly as possible.
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Integrated
Plan, Washington.--The Committee is aware of the Integrated
Plan that has been developed by the Yakima River Basin Water
Enhancement Project Working Group, including the Bureau of
Reclamation, to address water storage and water supply needs
for agriculture, fish, and municipalities within the Yakima
River Basin in Central Washington. The Committee is supportive
of the Plan and encourages the Bureau to move forward on
implementing authorized components of the Plan.
WaterSMART Program, Interagency Partnerships.--The
Committee notes the work being undertaken by the Bureau of
Reclamation and United States Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to coordinate the
water use efficiency assistance authorized under the Secure
Water Act and the on-farm water conservation assistance
provided through the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives
Program. This partnership began in 2011 with attention focused
in California, but has since expanded beyond this area. The
Committee encourages Reclamation to continue working with the
NRCS to identify and implement ways within existing authorities
to extend the benefits of this collaborative effort throughout
the West.
WaterSMART Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse
Projects.--The Committee has heard from numerous stakeholders
who believe the program's effectiveness could be enhanced
through expanding the pool of projects eligible to compete for
funding for planning, design, or construction activities. The
Committee encourages Reclamation to develop and propose to the
authorizing committees of both Houses of Congress
recommendations for improvements, which may include
programmatic changes and project-specific authorizations.
Water Supply Authorities.--Reclamation is directed to
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act a report detailing the authorizations (including specific
statutory citations) currently available to provide additional
water supply to drought prone areas; an assessment of
opportunities to accelerate actions to provide water supply;
and research and development investments that could expand or
maximize existing supplies through water quality improvements
such as addressing Colorado River Salinity or impaired water.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriation, 2015................................... $56,995,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 49,528,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 49,528,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... -7,467,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
This fund was established to carry out the provisions of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and to provide
funding for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition,
and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the
Central Valley area of California. Resources are derived from
donations, revenues from voluntary water transfers and tiered
water pricing, and Friant Division surcharges. The account also
is financed through additional mitigation and restoration
payments collected on an annual basis from project
beneficiaries.
For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends $49,528,000,
$7,467,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget
request. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for
programs and activities according to the Administration's
request. The Committee notes that the decrease for this account
in the budget request and recommendation is based on a three-
year rolling average of collections, in accordance with the
authorizing statute.
The Committee has heard from Members of the House of
Representatives and affected stakeholders concerned with the
effectiveness of the funds expended, as well as progress made
towards the activities and goals delineated in the Act. The
Committee notes these concerns have been expressed repeatedly
even though Reclamation makes an annual report available to the
public. The Committee welcomes a discussion on ways to make
Reclamation's explanation of its work under this program more
accessible and meaningful for all interested stakeholders.
Anadromous Fish Screen Program.--The Committee notes the
progress being made to screen the high priority unscreened
diversions on the Sacramento River under the Bureau of
Reclamation's Anadromous Fish Screen Program. The Committee
encourages Reclamation to continue its focus on screening of
the remaining high priority diversions from within funds made
available under the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund in
future budget requests.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2015................................... $37,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 37,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 37,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The California Bay-Delta Restoration account funds the
federal share of water supply and reliability improvements,
ecosystem improvements, and other activities being developed
for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds
by a state and federal partnership (CALFED). Federal
participation in this program was initially authorized in the
California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act
enacted in 1996.
For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends $37,000,000,
the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request.
The Committee notes that with the passage last year of
California's Proposition 1, the California Water Commission is
expected to begin in early 2017 allocating $2,700,000,000 for
the public benefits of water storage projects. To ensure that
the CALFED water supply projects are able to compete for the
available State funding, the bill includes a general provision
directing the Bureau of Reclamation to complete each of these
feasibility studies by a specific date and to submit the
completed studies to the appromiate committees of both houses
of Congress. The language also requires periodic progress
reports.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Appropriation, 2015................................... $58,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 59,500,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 59,500,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Policy and Administration account provides for the
executive direction and management of all Reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's office in
Washington, D.C.; the Technical Service Center in Denver,
Colorado; and, in five regional offices. The Denver and
regional offices charge individual projects or activities for
direct beneficial services and related administrative and
technical costs. These charges are covered under other
appropriations. For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends
$59,500,000, $1,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as
the budget request.
The recommendation includes legislative language
restricting the availability of 75 percent of this funding
until such time as Reclamation complies with congressional and
statutory direction related to the Technical Memorandum on
buried metallic water pipe and the associated pipeline
reliability study.
With the notable exception of the issue of buried metallic
water pipe, Reclamation's responsiveness to congressional
direction and Committee information requests has improved
significantly since last year. The Committee appreciates
Reclamation's efforts.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for
the purchase of passenger motor vehicles.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
The bill continues a provision regarding the circumstances
in which the Bureau of Reclamation may reprogram funds.
The bill continues a provision regarding the San Luis Unit
and Kesterson Reservoir in California.
The bill includes a provision regarding completion of
certain feasibility studies.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
INTRODUCTION
Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department
of Energy programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear
Energy, Fossil Energy Research and Development, Naval Petroleum
and Oil Shale Reserves, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, the Energy Information
Administration, Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, the Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Science,
Nuclear Waste Disposal, the Advanced Research Projects Agency--
Energy, Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, Advanced
Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loans Program, Departmental
Administration, Office of the Inspector General, the National
Nuclear Security Administration (Weapons Activities, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and Federal Salaries
and Expenses), Defense Environmental Cleanup, Defense Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning, Other Defense
Activities, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Committee Recommendation
The Department of Energy has requested a total budget of
$30,527,136,000, as estimated by the Congressional Budget
Office, in fiscal year 2016 to fund programs in its four
primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, and
national security. The Department of Energy budget request is
$2,610,339,000 above fiscal year 2015.
The Committee's recommendation restructures the balance of
the bill to ensure inherently federal responsibilities, such as
national security, basic science activities, and environmental
cleanup, are supported, while investing in long-term research
to improve existing forms of energy production and to develop
new and innovative forms of energy for the nation's long-term
energy independence and prosperity.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION
Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution
states ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law''.
The Committee continues the Department's reprogramming
authority in statute to ensure that the Department carries out
its programs consistent with congressional direction. This
reprogramming authority is established at the program, project,
or activity level, whichever is the most specific included in
the table detailing the Committee's recommendation for the
Department of Energy's various accounts. The Committee also
prohibits new starts through the use of reprogramming and
includes other direction to improve public oversight of the
Department's actions. In addition, the recommendation continues
a general provision specifying which transfer authorities may
be used for accounts funded by this Act.
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND MANAGEMENT
The Department is still not in full compliance with its
statutory requirement to submit to Congress, at the time that
the President's budget request is submitted, a future-years
energy program that covers the fiscal year of the budget
submission and the four succeeding years, as directed in the
fiscal year 2012 Act. Development and submission of a five-year
budget is an important step in enhancing the Department's
ability to conduct long-term planning and to understand issues
that might impact the affordability of certain proposals. The
Department is directed to submit not later than 90 days after
the enactment of this Act to the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress a report on a plan to become fully
compliant with this requirement.
The Committee continues to be concerned about the
Department's management of its prior-year carryover funds and
the buildup of excessive prior-year balances that are greater
than five years old. Retaining these old balances places a
cumbersome administrative burden on DOE programs and makes the
Department's financial management processes inefficient and
unnecessarily complex. Last year, the Committee directed the
Department to consider all balances greater than five years old
effectively expired and to submit all remaining unexpended
balances greater than five years old as an offset to its annual
budget request. The Department proposed a limited amount of
funding in certain accounts to offset the fiscal year 2016
budget request, but did not submit any requests to retain
specific prior-year funds. The Committee will monitor the
monthly financial reports provided by the Department to ensure
that these funds are eliminated during budget execution. The
Committee will consider any additional amounts that have not
been spent by the end of fiscal year 2015 to be available for
offset, unless a specific request is received to retain those
balances. The Committee will continue to consider all
Department of Energy programs under a five year period of
availability in future years.
The Committee is also concerned that the Department is
failing in its responsibility to ensure that DOE contracts with
incurred costs valued at billions of dollars per year are
audited in a timely manner. The DOE Inspector General recently
investigated cost audit coverage of non-maintenance and
operating contracts and found that the current cost audit
coverage was insufficient because the Department primarily
utilizes the Defense Contract Audit Agency and that agency has
been unable to perform many of its audits on a timely basis.
The Department is directed to submit not later than 120 days
after the enactment of this Act to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a plan to improve
cost audit coverage, with clear milestones and performance
measures.
Alleviation of Poverty. --The Secretary of Energy is
directed to provide not later than 120 days after the enactment
of this Act a report detailing all domestic and international
projects and programs within its jurisdiction that contribute
to the alleviation of poverty.
MANAGEMENT OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE
Despite the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the
Administration's refusal to finish the Yucca Mountain license
application was illegal, the Administration continues to
disregard current law regarding Yucca Mountain. These actions
to stop the development of the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste
Repository have delayed the federal government from fulfilling
the legal requirement to take responsibility for civilian spent
nuclear fuel, increasing the financial penalties taxpayers must
bear. The remaining liability is currently estimated to be
$22,600,000,000. Under current law, any damages or settlements
in this litigation will be paid out of the Judgment Fund. In
addition, high-level defense waste at sites across the country
now have no disposition pathway, presenting the likelihood that
the federal government will have to pay penalties to the states
as deadlines for removal are missed.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed the
Safety Evaluation Report for the project finding no substantive
reasons that the Yucca Mountain Site cannot be completed. In
Volume 2 which covers safety before permanent closure, the NRC
concludes that with reasonable assurance, subject to proposed
conditions, the Department's application meets the NRC
regulatory requirements. The NRC has also begun preparing a
supplement to the Department's environmental impact statement
(EIS) on the proposed geologic repository for spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada. Previously, the NRC staff found the EIS prepared by the
Department did not adequately address all of the repository-
related effects on groundwater, or from surface discharges of
groundwater. In 2013, the Commission asked the Department to
prepare a supplement. Rather than comply with the Court Order,
the Department updated its analysis of potential groundwater
impacts after closure of a repository at the site, and in
February 2015 the Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare
the supplement. The NRC staff will use the Department's
analysis in preparing the supplement, which is expected to be
completed in the Spring of 2016.
Nevertheless, the Administration's fiscal year 2016 budget
request once again attempts to fund unauthorized alternatives
for used nuclear fuel disposition instead of moving forward
with Yucca Mountain. It includes a proposal to implement the
Department's Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, which was
informed by the Administration's Blue Ribbon Commission that by
its very charter did not examine the suitability of Yucca
Mountain as a permanent repository. This strategy is estimated
to cost $5,700,000,000 over the next ten years and proposes to
reform the current funding arrangement for the Department's
nuclear waste fund management program. The recommendation
rejects these non-Yucca proposals and makes clear that any
activities funded from the Nuclear Waste Fund must be in
support of Yucca Mountain.
To address the Administration's failure to execute current
law, the recommendation provides $150,000,000 within Nuclear
Waste Disposal to support the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste
Geologic Repository and $25,000,000 within the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to support the continued adjudication of
the Yucca Mountain license application. The Committee notes
that geological repositories in addition to Yucca Mountain will
be needed. If the Congress provides the authority for such
repositories, as well as for a consensus-based siting process,
the Committee will consider support for such activities at that
time. In the meantime, the bill contains a prohibition on using
funds to close the Yucca Mountain license application or to
take actions that would irrevocably remove Yucca Mountain as an
option for a repository.
PROLIFERATION OF CENTERS
The Committee remains concerned with the Department's
continual proposals to establish new research centers reliant
on out-year funding commitments subject to future
appropriations. In fiscal year 2016, the Department proposed
funding two new Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation
Institutes, in addition to providing continued funding for the
existing four Institutes funded in prior years. In last year's
Act, two Energy Innovation Hubs were renewed in for another
five-year term while funds were provided to support continued
operations at the other two existing Hubs. Furthermore, the
Department is requesting continued funding for the BioEnergy
Research Centers and additional funds for the Energy Frontier
Research Centers. The funding of institutes constitutes a
growing portion of the Department's budget and represents a
significant out-year investment.
While the fiscal year 2016 request provided more detail
than before for the establishment of new research centers, the
Committee expects the Department to provide a more detailed
analysis in future requests. The Committee continues to support
the ongoing review of all existing research centers and urges
the Department to take a critical look at its portfolio to
determine where improvements can be made in its existing
inventory of research centers.
The Committee reiterates its previous direction for the
Department to explicitly include in future budget
justifications for all centers, hubs, institutes, facilities,
and any other persistent, location-based grantees; their
current and proposed funding levels; expected out-year
commitments; and details on their programmatic and technical
goals.
COMMONLY RECYCLED PAPER
The Department shall not expend funds for projects that
knowingly use as a feedstock commonly recycled paper that is
segregated from municipal solid waste or collected as part of a
collection system that commingles commonly recycled paper with
other solid waste at any point from the time of collection
through materials recovery.
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS
The Committee acknowledges the Department's efforts to
expand the commercial impact of its research activities in
creating the Office of Technology Transitions. As one of the
largest providers of basic and applied research in the nation,
the Department is at the forefront of innovation. The
scientific and technical capabilities of the Department's
research centers and the National Laboratories have been an
essential component in many technological breakthroughs. The
Committee supports the continued efforts of the Department in
assisting the transfer of federally funded research from the
laboratory to the commercial sector. However, the Committee
expects that these technology transfer efforts will receive
equal treatment across each of the Department's research
activities. In carrying out the activities of the Office of
Technology Transitions, the Department is directed to use
funding taken from individual applied research offices on
projects within the purview of that same applied research
office. The Committee directs the Department to submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not
later than 180 days after enactment of this Act a report on the
activities of the Office of Technology Transitions and provide
a table tracking the usage of the Energy Technology
Commercialization Fund to specific technology transfer and
partnership activities.
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and
scholarship programs in fiscal year 2016 unless the programs
were explicitly included in the budget justification or funded
within this recommendation. Any new or ongoing programs that
the Department chooses to fund in fiscal year 2016 must be
detailed in the fiscal year 2016 budget justifications. This
direction shall be followed in future fiscal years unless
contradicted by the Committee.
REPROGRAMMING AND TRANSFER GUIDELINES
The Committee requires the Department to inform the
Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution
and funding is required during the fiscal year. The
Department's reprogramming requirements are detailed in
statute. To assist the Department in this effort, the following
guidance is provided for programs and activities.
Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation. The
recommendation includes a general provision providing internal
reprogramming authority to the Department, as long as no
program, project, or activity is increased or decreased by more
than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, compared to
the levels in the table detailing the Committee's
recommendations for the Department's various accounts. For
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the
reallocation of funds from one construction project to another
project or a change of $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is
less, in the scope of an approved project.
Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if
delay of the project or activity until the next fiscal year
would result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or
priority. A reprogramming may also be considered if the
Department can show that significant cost savings can accrue by
increasing funding for an activity. Mere convenience or
preference should not be a factor for consideration. A
reprogramming may not be employed to initiate new programs, or
to change program, project, or activity allocations
specifically denied, limited, or increased by the Congress in
the Act or report.
Reporting and Approval Procedures.--In recognition of the
security missions of the Department, the legislative guidelines
allow the Secretary and the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration jointly to waive the
reprogramming restriction by certifying to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress that it is in the
nation's security interest to do so. The Department shall not
deviate from the levels for activities specified in the report
which are below the level of the detail table, except through
the regular notification procedures of the Committee. No funds
may be added to programs for which funding has been denied. Any
reallocation of new or prior-year budget authority or prior-
year de-obligations, or any request to implement a
reorganization which includes moving previous appropriations
between appropriations accounts must be submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress in
writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the
Committees.
Transfers.--As in fiscal year 2015, funding actions into or
out of accounts funded by this Act may only be made by transfer
authorities provided by this or other Appropriations Acts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy
programs in fiscal year 2016 are described in the following
sections. A detailed funding table is included at the end of
this title.
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Appropriation, 2015................................... $1,923,935,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 2,722,987,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 1,657,774,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... -266,161,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -1,065,213,000
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs
include research, development, demonstration, and deployment
activities advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy
technologies, as well as federal energy assistance programs.
The EERE program is divided into three portfolios: sustainable
transportation, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. The
sustainable transportation portfolio, which consists of the
vehicles, bioenergy, and hydrogen and fuel cell programs,
advances the development of plug-in electric and other
alternative vehicles, high-efficiency advanced combustion
engines, and the replacement of oil with clean domestic
transportation fuels. The renewable energy portfolio, which
consists of the solar, wind, water, and geothermal programs,
aims to develop innovative technologies to make renewable
electricity generation cost competitive with traditional
sources of energy. The energy efficiency portfolio, which
consists of the advanced manufacturing, buildings, and federal
energy assistance programs, seeks cost-effective solutions to
reduce energy consumption in plants, buildings, and homes.
The Committee recommends $1,657,774,000 for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $266,161,000 below fiscal year
2015 and $1,065,213,000 below the budget request.
For the purposes of allocating funding, the Committee
encourages the Department to examine the feasibility of ultra
conductive copper as an application-driven, crosscutting
technology area, including funding to support prototype
development and the scale-up of manufacturing with established
experts within EERE.
The Department is directed to end the practice of taking a
small fraction of annual funding within EERE technology offices
to fund incubator programs.
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
The Vehicle, Bioenergy, and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies programs fund activities that can reduce American
exposure to future high oil prices. Research into cutting-edge
technologies that will increase the fuel economy of gasoline
and diesel fuel vehicles--the vast majority of today's fleet--
will allow Americans to spend less on fuel while traveling the
same distance. Research into next-generation automotive and
fuel cell technologies that power vehicles with domestic energy
sources such as natural gas, electricity, biofuels, and
hydrogen can likewise dramatically lower the impact of future
high gas prices on Americans.
The Committee recommends $514,783,000 for Sustainable
Transportation, $87,217,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$278,217,000 below the budget request.
Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$255,400,000 for Vehicle Technologies, $24,600,000 below fiscal
year 2015 and $188,600,000 below the budget request. The
Committee acknowledges the success of the SuperTruck I program
in improving freight and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency. Within
available funds, the recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the
SuperTruck II program to further improve the efficiency of
heavy-duty class 8 long- and regional-haul vehicles through
multi-year awards subject to future availability of funds. The
Department is directed to provide maximum funding flexibility
needed to achieve the program's objectives. Additionally, the
Department should consider industry-wide impacts when making
these awards.
The recommendation provides $95,000,000 for Batteries and
Electric Drive Technology, of which $40,800,000 is for advanced
battery development, including up to $6,000,000 to continue
national laboratory performance testing and life cycle
diagnostic assessment activities that validate and verify
advanced battery performance.
The recommendation provides $25,900,000 for Outreach and
Development, of which $24,000,000 is for the Clean Cities
program. No funding is provided for Advanced Vehicle
Competitions or the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Community Partner
projects. The Committee urges the Department to support
training and outreach, including to small repair shops, related
to diesel to natural gas retrofits.
For other subprograms within Vehicle Technologies, the
recommendation provides $34,500,000 for Vehicle and Systems
Simulation and Testing; $47,000,000 for Advanced Combustion
Engines; $32,500,000 for Materials Technology; and $22,500,000
for Fuels Technology.
The Committee encourages Vehicle Technologies to further
address the need to overcome the barriers to widespread
adoption of lightweight designs that include mixed materials
such as magnesium alloys, aluminum alloys, high-strength
steels, and fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Applied
research is needed to develop coatings, adhesives, high-
strength fiber glass, and other advanced materials to
effectively join mixed materials, prevent corrosion, reduce
costs, and address consumer requirements such as noise
mitigation and appearance.
The Committee also encourages the Department to work with
the natural gas vehicle industry to identify needs and develop
solutions for additional engines and emissions control
technologies in order to obtain the emission advantages when
using natural gas in high efficiency engines.
Bioenergy Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$165,300,000 for Bioenergy Technologies, $59,700,000 below
fiscal year 2015 and $80,700,000 below the budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation includes
$46,500,000 for Feedstocks, of which $30,000,000 is for
research and development of biofuels from algae feedstocks;
$75,500,000 for Conversion Technologies; $25,800,000 for
Demonstration and Deployment, of which no funding is for the
joint initiative with the Navy and the Department of
Agriculture to develop commercial diesel and jet biofuels
production capacity for defense purposes; and $11,000,000 for
Strategic Analysis and Cross-Cutting Sustainability.
The Committee directs the Department to develop a
comprehensive list of existing demonstration and pilot-scale
multi-user facilities for bio-based products, chemicals, and
intermediates, including synthesis gas, hydrogen, and methane,
assess the gaps and needs of such inventory, and report to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not
later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $94,083,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies,
$2,917,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $8,917,000 below the
budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation includes
$7,000,000 for Technology Validation, of which $5,000,000 is to
continue to conduct testing and analysis of fuel cells as
industrial-scale energy storage devices, with validation and
testing using full-scale testing and demonstration
capabilities.
The Committee recognizes the achievements of the Fuel Cell
Technologies program, and expresses its continued support for
fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle,
motive and portable power applications. Through the Market
Transformation program, the Department should engage in cost-
shared deployments to encourage expanding state-related
activities including, but not limited to: tri-generation
facilities, ground support equipment for aviation and maritime
ports, hybrid-vehicle range extenders, energy storage projects
to support base load renewable energy projects, and microgrid
deployments to improve resiliency. Additionally, the Department
should work with states to overcome challenges associated with
deployment of hydrogen infrastructure.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
The Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Water Power, and Geothermal
Technologies programs fund applied research, development, and
demonstration to reduce the cost of renewable energy to
economically competitive levels. Research into innovative
technologies, such as photovoltaic and concentrating solar
technologies, offshore wind, hydropower, and ground heat, can
expand energy production from our domestic resources and reduce
our dependence on foreign oil.
The Committee recommends $326,750,000 for Renewable Energy,
$129,250,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $318,450,000 below the
budget request.
Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $151,600,000 for
Solar Energy, $81,400,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$185,100,000 below the budget request. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $32,000,000 for Concentrating Solar
Power; $33,000,000 for Photovoltaic Research and Development;
$39,500,000 for Systems Integration; and $23,000,000 for
Innovations in Manufacturing Competitiveness, of which no
funding is included for the SUNPATH III program.
Within the funds available for Innovations in Manufacturing
Competitiveness, the Committee directs the Solar Technologies
program to provide funding opportunities, as proposed in the
budget request, that support U.S. equipment supply chain
technology efforts, which will reduce the cost of manufacturing
silicon photovoltaic cells by reducing the amount of raw
material silicon needed to produce a solar cell while also
increasing manufacturing efficiencies by removing manufacturing
process steps to produce solar cells.
Wind Energy.--The Committee recommends $90,450,000 for Wind
Energy, $16,550,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $55,050,000
below the budget request. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides $37,000,000 for the Offshore Wind
Advanced Technology Demonstration Project; $2,000,000 to
continue research and development in support of the offshore
demonstration project; $10,000,000 for the Mitigate Market
Barriers program, of which $4,500,000 is for the research
initiative focused on Eagle Impact Mitigation Technologies; and
$1,000,000 for the Wind for Schools program.
The Committee continues to support wind activities with
large generation potential that rely on technology innovations
that would not be developed by the private sector alone. To
this end, the Committee supports an emphasis on offshore wind
technologies that address the unique opportunities and issues
across the nation's waterways, such as high winds, icing, and
deep water, rather than those technologies currently being
considered by the private sector.
Water Power.--The Committee recommends $38,700,000 for
Water Power, $22,300,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $28,300,000
below the budget request. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides $21,280,000 for marine and hydrokinetic
technologies and $16,720,000 for conventional hydropower, of
which $3,960,000 is for the purposes of Section 242 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The Committee recognizes the Department's funding of marine
hydrokinetic power research and understands the Department's
basis for past allocation of funding between the various
sources of marine hydrokinetic power. The Committee also
understands that locations for harnessing various forms of
marine hydrokinetic power are located closer to major
population centers, which could utilize the power created by
marine hydrokinetic power technologies. The Committee directs
the Department to allocate the current fiscal year funding to
marine hydrokinetic power based on the Department's
comprehensive resource assessments and industry and stakeholder
input, allowing for the further development of marine
hydrokinetic power technologies.
Geothermal Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$46,000,000 for Geothermal Technologies, $9,000,000 below
fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000 below the budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation provides $27,000,000
for Enhanced Geothermal Systems, of which $21,000,000 is for
ongoing activities for the Frontier Observatory for Research in
Geothermal Energy project.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
The Advanced Manufacturing, Building Technologies, Federal
Energy Management, and Weatherization and Intergovernmental
programs advance cost-effective solutions to reduce energy
consumption through increased efficiency. Research into
cutting-edge technologies that enhance manufacturing processes,
develop advanced materials, and reduce energy use in buildings,
homes, and factories can serve the national interest by greatly
reducing our energy needs, while also giving American
manufacturers an advantage to compete in the global
marketplace.
The Committee recommends $617,562,000 for Energy
Efficiency, $24,438,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $412,025,000
below the budget request.
Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends
$205,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing, $5,000,000 above
fiscal year 2015 and $199,000,000 below the budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation provides not less
than $4,205,000 for improvements in the steel industry; not
less than $20,000,000 for combined heat and power activities
relevant to industrial applications and energy savings in
manufacturing processes; and not less than $500,000 to continue
efforts furthering improvements in mechanical insulation. The
Committee encourages the Department to continue to support
technical assistance for combined heat and power demonstrations
and deployments that support systems-level optimization,
microgrids, and grid integration, as well as research and
development into next-generation combined heat and power
technologies.
For subprograms within Advanced Manufacturing, the
recommendation provides $79,000,000 for Next Generation
Manufacturing Research and Development Projects, of which
$12,900,000 is for the Advanced Manufacturing Incubator;
$28,500,000 for Industrial Technical Assistance; and
$106,500,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Research and
Development Facilities, of which $25,000,000 is for the fifth
year of funding for the Critical Materials Energy Innovation
Hub, $10,000,000 is for the Manufacturing Demonstration
Facility and the Carbon Fiber Test Facility, $1,500,000 is for
the joint additive manufacturing pilot institute with the
Department of Defense, and $70,000,000 is for five Clean Energy
Manufacturing Innovation (CEMI) Institutes. The Department may
use up to $6,000,000 of funding provided under Research and
Development Projects to support operations of the Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility and the Carbon Fiber Test Facility,
should additional funding be needed.
The recommendation supports the establishment of one new
CEMI Institute in fiscal year 2016, in addition to the four
established using fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015 funding.
Should the Department propose funding for additional CEMI
Institutes in the future, the Committee directs that all future
budget justifications include a specific research topic
associated with a CEMI Institute, which will provide the
Committee with the necessary transparency to evaluate and
prioritize funding to ensure that only highly-effective centers
closely aligned with Advanced Manufacturing program missions
are funded.
The Committee recognizes the significant outcomes from
partnering with industry to create American jobs and strengthen
the U.S. manufacturing base and encourages an applied research
funding opportunity announcement as a part of the Process
intensification applied research portfolio which includes
innovative approaches to low-thermal budget process heating and
thermally activated chemical reactions to reduce industrial
energy intensity. Suitable approaches might include novel
applications of electromagnetic energy, such as microwave or
radio frequency, and novel materials that require less energy
to heat or chemically react.
The Committee also recognizes the importance of the textile
sector and believes that federal support for advanced textile
research is essential to maintaining the competitiveness of the
domestic textile and apparel industry. The Committee believes
that advanced textile research can develop more sustainable
manufacturing processes and technologies that will benefit
producers, foster the reshoring of textile jobs to the United
States, and reduce the global environmental impact of textile
manufacturing. The Committee therefore encourages the
Department to consider the need for competitively-funded
advanced textile manufacturing process research.
The Committee is aware that the U.S. represents the largest
market for lithium metal, a near critical material with
national security and advanced manufacturing applications. The
Committee notes that the U.S. domestic supply and technology
position of lithium metal is on a downward trend relative to
China and Russia. Assuring domestic production of lithium metal
is critical to many investments made across the Department. The
Committee directs the Department to analyze the impact federal
investment may have in strengthening the availability and usage
of lithium, including low-sodium lithium metal, and issue not
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act a report on
the Department's capabilities to increase U.S. domestic supply.
Building Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$150,362,000 for Building Technologies, $21,638,000 below
fiscal year 2015 and $113,638,000 below the budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation includes
$14,000,000 for the Building America program, the same as the
request, and $6,000,000 for research and development activities
for small scale combined heat and power systems that can be
used for residential and small commercial settings.
For the subprograms within Building Technologies, the
recommendation provides $28,000,000 for Commercial Buildings
Integration; $55,862,000 for Emerging Technologies, of which
$21,000,000 is for solid state lighting and, in addition to
funds recommended for lighting research and development,
$5,000,000 is for the second Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize, or
``L Prize,'' which offers both a monetary prize and federal
procurement and other benefits to the first organization that
manufactures highly-efficient PAR38 halogen replacement lamps
meeting various technical requirements; $41,000,000 for
Equipment and Buildings Standards; and $23,000,000 for
Residential Buildings Integration.
Commercial buildings account for 19 percent of the energy
consumed in the United States. In order to improve energy
efficiency within this important market, a national program to
improve the energy efficiency of small- and medium-sized
commercial buildings is needed. Within available funds, up to
$10,000,000 is to support a competitive funding opportunity for
proposals that would achieve deeper energy efficiency
improvements in small- and medium-sized commercial buildings.
The Committee recognizes that adaptive, automated, and
learning building technologies offer new opportunities for
energy savings in residential and commercial buildings. The
Committee encourages the Department to support collaborative
research with industry and demonstration of the energy savings
potential of adaptive connected equipment and responsive
building technologies.
Consistent with current policy, of the funds made available
for Building Technologies, the Department is directed not to
advocate, promote, or discourage the adoption or inclusion of a
particular building energy code or code provision, other than
the technical and economic analysis work required by statutory
mandate, or to provide funding to private third parties or non-
governmental organizations that engage in this type of
advocacy.
Furthermore, the Committee encourages the Department to
ensure consideration of states and localities' priorities when
developing a program for the Building Energy Codes Program.
The Committee directs the Department to work with its
partner agencies, industry, and relevant university programs to
initiate not later than eight months after the enactment of
this Act a study of the potential benefits of ``smart home''
electronics. The study should include, but not be limited to:
consumer control of energy sources in the home from remote
locations outside the home, compatible appliance availability,
control of compatible appliances from remote locations outside
the home, energy demand and load data capture and reporting,
automation of energy monitoring and reduced consumption, and
cost-effective technologies that could further save consumers
money and reduce the energy consumption in homes, and an
evaluation of research and development approaches for
increasing energy efficiency of home energy consumption.
Additionally, the Committee encourages the Department to
continue to consider energy savings from increased energy
efficiency of consumer electronics.
Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee
recommends $18,800,000 for the Federal Energy Management
Program, $8,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $24,288,000
below the budget request.
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs.--The
Committee recommends $243,400,000 for Weatherization and
Intergovernmental Programs, $400,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$75,099,000 below the budget request.
The recommendation provides $190,000,000 for Weatherization
Assistance Grants, all of which is for formula grants;
$3,000,000 for Training and Technical Assistance; and
$50,000,000 for the State Energy Program. The recommendation
includes no funding for competitive awards within the
Weatherization Assistance Program to develop and test financing
models to support energy efficiency retrofits.
The Secretary shall report not later than 90 days after the
enactment of this Act on the use of solar and other renewable
energy measures and systems in the Weatherization Assistance
Program and include an analysis of any requirements of law or
regulation or any policies of the Department which result in
making the installation of solar energy systems less likely
than other measures of comparable cost and benefit that are
installed by the program.
Social Cost of Carbon.--The Department should not
promulgate any regulations in fiscal year 2016 using the May
2013 estimates for the social cost of carbon until a new
working group is convened. The working group should include the
relevant agencies and affected stakeholders, re-examine the
social cost of carbon using the best available science, and
revise the estimates using an accurate discount rate and
domestic estimate in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and
OMB Circular A-4. To increase transparency, the working group
should solicit public comment prior to finalizing any updates.
CORPORATE SUPPORT
The Program Direction, Strategic Programs, and Facilities
and Infrastructure budgets provide the necessary resources for
program and project management across all of EERE's technology
programs, for the adoption of technologies to market, and for
the operation and upkeep of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
The Committee recommends $218,000,000 for Corporate Support
programs, $19,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $37,200,000
below the budget request.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $150,000,000
for Program Direction, $10,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$15,330,000 below the budget request.
Strategic Programs.--The Committee recommends $12,000,000
for Strategic Programs, of which $2,000,000 is for the U.S.-
Israel energy cooperative agreement and $2,000,000 is for the
joint industrial scale integrated energy systems research and
development effort with the Office of Nuclear Energy.
Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$56,000,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure, of which
$26,000,000 is for Operations and Maintenance and $30,000,000
is for Facility Management.
Use of Prior-Year Balances.--The recommendation includes
the use of $19,321,000 in prior-year balances, to be taken from
Solar Energy Program Direction.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
Appropriation, 2015................................... $147,306,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 270,100,000
Recommended, 2015..................................... 187,500,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +40,194,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -82,600,000
The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program
advances technologies and provides operational support to
increase the efficiency, resilience, and security of the
nation's electricity delivery system. The power grid employs
aging technologies at a time when power demands, the deployment
of new intermittent technologies, and rising security threats
are imposing new stresses on the system. The Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability aims to develop a
modern power grid by advancing cyber security technologies,
intelligent and high-efficiency grid components, and energy
storage systems.
The Committee recommends $187,500,000 for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability, $40,194,000 above fiscal year
2015 and $82,600,000 below the budget request.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and
Development.--The Committee recommends $140,500,000 for
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and
Development, $32,800,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $12,500,000
below the budget request. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides $31,000,000 for Clean Energy
Transmission and Reliability, of which $5,000,000 is for the
Energy Systems Predictive Capability activity; $30,000,000 for
Smart Grid; $15,000,000 for Energy Storage; and $54,500,000 for
cyber security for energy delivery systems, of which $5,000,000
is to continue development of the industry-scale electric grid
test bed; and $10,000,000 for Transformer Resilience and
Advanced Components.
The Committee recognizes that our nation's highly
integrated electrical grid is a target of cyber-attacks, and it
is imperative that we fully understand the complexity of the
interdependencies between information technology, operational
technology, and physical security. In this environment, the
Department's programs to strengthen the security and resilience
of the nation's electricity grid against cyber, physical, and
human risks must be closely coordinated, and the agency must
work with energy sector owners and operators to address these
risks and develop comprehensive mitigation strategies. The
Committee directs the Department to provide a report, not later
than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, with the
following: (1) the Department's plans to better understand and
respond to the full-range of energy sector threats through
enhanced engagement with private sector owners and operators of
such infrastructure; (2) recommendations to provide
consideration to owners of energy delivery systems for services
and hardware incurred in the act of information sharing,
analyzing, or exercising with any DOE agency or instrument
regarding energy sector systems protection as referenced in
this paragraph; and (3) an assessment of the need for a revised
organizational structure to better align the agency's energy
sector systems protection activities across cyber, physical,
and human risks, including those protecting government
facilities and networks.
Within Smart Grid Research and Development, the Committee
encourages the Department to accelerate the deployment of
community-scale power microgrids that improve local energy
reliability and resilience through technologies such as on-site
generation and storage. This includes investments in system
enhancements necessary to facilitate the integration of new
technologies. The potential grid enhancements could include
developing microgrid systems that can be customized to connect
distributed generation and enhance reliability and power
quality depending on customer needs.
The Committee supports the Department's efforts to improve
electricity reliability and grid integration initiatives.
Accordingly, the Committee encourages the Department to
establish one or more grid integration demonstration modules.
These projects should include a utility that has experienced
some reliability problems in the past and serves a large
population; industrial and academic partners with appropriate
engineering capabilities in grid and energy storage
technologies in an area that could incorporate opportunities to
include solar and wind elements; and national laboratories
involved in the grid integration consortium.
The Committee continues to support the Department's
research activities to ensure transmission reliability. Recent
weather-related events, however, have reinforced the need for
integration of local, regional, and national weather into
transmission reliability and resiliency modeling and simulation
activities to support the utility industry and emergency
response. The Committee encourages the Department to partner
with universities, national laboratories, and industry when
issuing competitively-awarded research and development
activities to ensure regional weather and related environmental
variables are accounted for in advanced grid modeling research.
The Committee recognizes the Department's efforts in
advancing the state of power management in the grid using
advanced semiconductor technology. This technology has the
potential for increasing transmission efficiency and grid
reliability, and reducing the need for construction of
additional power lines. The Committee encourages the Department
to continue this support by investing in additional research
and development of cost competitive, lateral, normally-off
gallium nitride on silicon based power electronic devices with
increased voltage and current handling capability appropriate
for electric grid applications. This will result in lower power
costs to the consumer and higher reliability of the
transmission and distribution infrastructure.
Within available funds for Energy Storage, the Committee
encourages the Department to support utility-sponsored and
operated energy storage test facilities that are capable of
performance-driven data in a utility environment.
Furthermore, the Committee understands that through using
support of the electric grid, we can achieve capabilities
unmatched by any other approach for the storage, transmission,
and distribution offered by the natural gas grid. In
recognition of this need, the Committee encourages the Energy
Storage program to solicit a demonstration of utility-scale
energy storage, utilizing existing pipeline infrastructure to
store renewable natural gas.
The Committee recognizes that further investment is needed
to maintain and expand power and energy education programs, and
secure industry partnerships to facilitate the development of a
highly skilled next-generation technical and engineering
workforce for the electric power sector. Therefore, the
Committee encourages the Department to prioritize its research
and development investments so that they engage and further
develop the capabilities of university undergraduate and
graduate programs in power and energy.
The Committee recognizes the value an independent
assessment may have to verify, criticize, and reinforce key
issues within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability's mission to support the nation's electricity
delivery system. In last year's House Report, the Committee
directed the Department to contract with an appropriate
organization to conduct a national level comprehensive study on
the future resiliency and reliability of the nation's electric
power transmission and distribution system. The Committee looks
forward to the results of this ongoing study.
Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration (ISER).--The
Committee recommends $14,000,000 for Infrastructure Security
and Energy Restoration, $8,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
the same as the budget request. The Department was directed to
use $8,000,000 in 2015 for the Operational Energy and
Resilience program to support the construction of the
Operations Center within the Department's Headquarters. It is
the Committee's understanding that the Department has chosen
not to build out this Operations Center. Not later than 30 days
after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall report on
plans for meeting the requirement for a functional Operations
Center that meets the needs articulated by the Department in
last year's budget request.
The Committee directs the Department of Energy to submit
not later than 6 months after the enactment of this Act a
report on the vulnerability of the grid to an electromagnetic
pulse event and the potential impact on reliability and
delivery of electric power. At a minimum, the report should
address protective and mitigative measures for these
vulnerabilities, including hardening of infrastructure,
blocking of induced currents and voltages, stocking and
prepositioning of spare parts, and operational and emergency
planning. The Department is encouraged to coordinate with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to provide an analysis
of: (1) the actions taken by NERC to set standards for owners
and operators of electric utilities; and (2) whether such
standards are sufficient to harden the grid against severe
space weather and other electromagnetic events.
State Energy Reliability and Assurance Grants.--The
Committee recommends no funds for this new activity.
Nuclear Energy
Appropriation, 2015................................... $833,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 907,574,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 936,161,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +102,661,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +28,587,000
Nuclear power generates approximately one-fifth of the
nation's electricity and will continue to be an important base-
load energy source in the future. The Department of Energy's
Nuclear Energy program invests in research, development, and
demonstration activities that develop the next generation of
clean and safe reactors, further improve the safety of our
current reactor fleet, and contribute to the nation's long-term
leadership in the global nuclear power industry.
The Committee recommends $936,161,000 for Nuclear Energy,
$102,661,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $28,587,000 above the
budget request.
Spent Fuel Plans.--The Committee directs the Department to
submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress not later than 120 days after the enactment
of this Act on how, under current law, the proximity to
reservations of federally recognized Indian tribes, or lands
owned by the United States in trust for the benefit of any
Indian tribe, impacts the prioritization for disposal of spent
nuclear fuel.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee provides $504,618,000 for Nuclear Energy
Research and Development, $6,118,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$21,831,000 above the budget request.
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $111,600,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling
Technologies, $10,600,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$25,213,000 above the budget request, of which not less than
$4,000,000 shall be for knowledge and validation work; not less
than $4,000,000 shall be for integrated energy systems; and not
less than $2,000,000 for nuclear cyber activities. Within
available funds, the recommendation provides $17,000,000 for
Crosscutting Technology Development; $27,200,000 for Nuclear
Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation, of which funding above
the request is for additional support for TREAT modeling and
simulation activities; $24,300,000 for the second year of the
second five-year term of the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling
and Simulation; $2,000,000 for Nuclear Energy Traineeships; and
$41,100,000 for the National Science User Facility, of which
funding above the request is to expand user facility
capabilities and collaborations, including up to $2,000,000 to
support high performance computing activities.
Integrated University Program.--The Committee recommends
$5,000,000 to continue the Integrated University Program, which
is critical to ensuring the nation's nuclear science and
engineering workforce in future years.
Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Licensing Technical Support.--
The Committee recommends $62,500,000 for SMR Licensing
Technical Support, $8,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the
same as the budget request. The Committee directs that all
fiscal year 2016 funding within this program is to support the
second award for an SMR design. The Committee is aware that the
need for fiscal year 2016 funding for the SMR Licensing
Technical Support program may change throughout the year and
will consider additional funding according to developments.
In fiscal year 2014 the Department approved a second award
which allowed support of advanced innovative technology. At
that time, the Department's main focus was on advanced safety
innovation, and thus the Department did not require a utility
partner or a near term commercialization date. There is now a
utility partner and an earlier target commercialization date of
2023 for the second award. The Committee expects DOE will
submit adequate budget requests to fully support a completed
design certification from the NRC and standard plant design
work, as well as a combined construction and operation license
from NRC for its utility partner. The utility partner
identified for a previous award may continue with site
permitting activities and combined construction and operation
license activities.
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and
Demonstration.--The Committee recommends $141,718,000 for
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration,
$8,718,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $33,578,000 above the
budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation
provides $40,000,000 for Light Water Reactor Sustainability, of
which $14,000,000 is to support advanced safety methods
development and the risk informed safety margin
characterization methodology; and $99,718,000 for Advanced
Reactor Concepts to consist of the following activities:
$33,000,000 is for research of the fuel and graphite
qualification program for the High Temperature Gas Reactor;
$17,500,000 is for the continued development of two
performance-based advanced reactor concepts, of which
$11,500,000 is follow-on funding for the industry-only
competition of two performance-based advanced reactor concepts
held in fiscal year 2015 and $6,000,000 is for the national
laboratories selected to work with the awardees to perform the
work required by the awardees to meet the goals of the awards;
and $7,000,000 is for an advanced test/demonstration reactor
planning study by the national laboratories, industry, and
other relevant stakeholders of such a reactor in the U.S. The
recommendation funds other activities within Advanced Reactor
Concepts at the requested level. As the nation's leading
sponsor of research in advanced reactor concepts, the
Department plays an important role in propelling nuclear energy
innovation. The Committee encourages the Department to develop
a plan for demonstrating a new advanced reactor by 2035.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee
recommends $175,800,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and
Development, $21,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $41,960,000
below the budget request. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides $60,100,000 for the Advanced Fuels
Program to continue implementation of accident tolerant fuels
development, of which $17,000,000 is for additional support of
feasibility studies for accident tolerant light water reactor
fuels and $4,000,000 is for additional support of capability
development of transient testing, including test design,
modeling, and simulation.
The recommendation provides $55,000,000 for Used Nuclear
Fuel Disposition (UNFD), $16,500,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$53,360,000 below the budget request. The recommendation
provides $55,000,000 for UNFD research and development
activities, $6,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $20,360,000
below the budget request. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides $6,000,000 to support activities to
design and certify a rail car or cars for use with licensed and
anticipated transportation casks; and $7,000,000 to support
preparation activities for testing of high burnup fuel. The
Committee directs the Department to support research and
development of advanced sensors, online monitoring, and other
non-destructive evaluation and examination technologies to
ensure long-term dry cask storage integrity. No funding is
provided for integrated waste management system activities or
new activities related to Department of Energy-Managed High
Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel.
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $6,800,000 for Radiological
Facilities Management, $18,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
the same as the budget request, to support the continued
operation of U.S. research reactors by providing research
reactor fuel services and maintenance of fuel fabrication
equipment.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $218,582,000 for Idaho Facilities
Management, $12,582,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,756,000
above the budget request.
INL Operations and Infrastructure.--The Committee
recommends $216,582,000 for INL Operations and Infrastructure,
$15,951,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,756,000 above the
budget request. Of the funds provided above the budget request,
the recommendation provides an additional $6,000,000 for
control system modernization at the Advanced Test Reactor
Critical Facility. Ensuring continued safe operation of the
Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) is a high priority for the
Committee. Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear Energy are
working together to identify upgrades that are needed to ensure
the safe and reliable operation of ATR until at least 2050.
However, the Committee is concerned that the period of time
that has passed since these planning activities were first
initiated is resulting in an extended schedule for completion.
Continued delays will only serve to increase costs and risks.
The Committee directs Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear
Energy to expedite resolution of any remaining issues and to
provide an update of progress as soon as possible.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for
Construction, $3,369,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as
the request, to commence preliminary design activities of the
Sample Preparation Laboratory.
IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommends $126,161,000 for Idaho Sitewide
Safeguards and Security, $22,161,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
the same as the budget request. The recommendation continues to
fund this activity out of the Nuclear Energy account, as
proposed in the budget request, and not out of Other Defense
Activities, as it was prior to fiscal year 2014.
SUPERCRITICAL TRANSFORMATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Supercritical
Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation Initiative,
the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request, to develop
and scale up advanced supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton
Cycle energy conversion technologies to pre-commercial pilot
demonstration to facilitate commercial development. This is a
joint initiative with the Office of Fossil Energy and the Solar
Energy program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
Appropriation, 2015................................... $571,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 560,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 605,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +34,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +45,000,000
Fossil energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural
gas, provide approximately 82 percent of all energy used by the
nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for
the majority of our needs for the foreseeable future. The
Fossil Energy Research and Development program funds research,
development, and demonstration activities to improve existing
technologies and to develop next-generation systems in the full
spectrum of fossil energy areas. At a time when fossil fuel
power generation is expanding around the globe, the activities
funded within this program advance our nation's position as a
leader in fossil energy technologies and ensure that we use the
full extent of our domestic resources safely and efficiently.
The Committee recommends $605,000,000 for Fossil Energy
Research and Development, $34,000,000 above fiscal year 2015
and $45,000,000 above the budget request.
Even with the enormous increases shown to almost every
account within the Department, the budget request once again
proposes reductions to the Office of Fossil Energy. Nearly 66
percent of electricity generated in the United States comes
from coal and natural gas. Fossil fuels will continue to be a
critical source of energy many years into the future. In order
to ensure the efficient use of existing fossil energy resources
and to deliver safe and responsible uses of untapped domestic
resources, the Office of Fossil Energy must remain one of the
highest priorities of the Department. The Department's past
research and development efforts have helped usher in
technological developments responsible for the production
increases seen today. The Committee recommendation increases
funding in these areas to ensure these technological advances
continue to occur and help American industry maintain
leadership in the global marketplace for fossil energy
technologies.
COAL--CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS
The Committee recommends $423,900,000 for Coal Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS) and Power Systems, $23,900,000 above
fiscal year 2015 and $54,543,000 above the budget request. The
Department is directed to use funds within the coal program
only for coal research and development, with the exception of
the Supercritical Transformational Electric Power Generation
program, which has applications to all high-temperature fossil
heat sources.
The Committee encourages the Department to establish
university partnerships to support ongoing fossil energy
programs, to promote broader research into CCS technologies,
and to expand its technology transfer efforts. The Department
has previously funded several university-based CCS projects and
can build on an established research base to support ongoing
research and to address the wider implementation of CCS
technologies.
Carbon Capture.--The Committee recommends $97,800,000 for
Carbon Capture, $9,800,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$18,831,000 below the budget request. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $12,000,000 for pre-combustion
capture systems and $85,800,000 for post-combustion capture
systems.
Carbon Storage.--The Committee recommends $104,000,000 for
Carbon Storage, $4,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$4,768,000 below the budget request. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $13,500,000 for Geologic Storage
Technologies; $10,000,000 for Monitoring, Verification,
Accounting, and Assessment; $2,000,000 for Carbon Use and
Reuse; $8,500,000 for Carbon Sequestration Science; and
$70,000,000 for Storage Infrastructure, of which funding above
the request is for additional support of detailed site
assessments for potential storage sites.
The Committee encourages the Department to expand its
support for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery technologies
beyond the current scope and urges the Department to support
the demonstration and deployment of promising, next-generation
technologies at mature oil fields.
Advanced Energy Systems.--The Committee recommends
$105,000,000 for Advanced Energy Systems, $2,000,000 above
fiscal year 2015 and $65,615,000 above the budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation provides $30,000,000
for Advanced Combustion Systems, of which funding above the
request is for additional support of projects that show
dramatic improvements in combustion capabilities, and pressure
gain combustion, chemical looping, and pressurized combustion
technologies projects; $25,000,000 for Gasification Systems, of
which $8,000,000 is for the Advanced Air Separation Program to
continue activities improving advanced air separation
technologies; $15,000,000 for Hydrogen Turbines; $5,000,000 for
coal-biomass to liquids activities, which seek to produce
liquid fuels from blends of domestic coal and biomass resources
with reduced emissions and land and water use through
integration of carbon capture and other technologies; and
$30,000,000 for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, which have the
potential to increase substantially the efficiency of clean
coal power generation systems, to create new opportunities for
the efficient use of natural gas, and to contribute
significantly to the development of alternative-fuel vehicles.
Within available funds for Gasification Systems, the
Department is encouraged to support projects near completion.
Crosscutting Research.--The Committee recommends
$52,100,000 for Crosscutting Research, $3,100,000 above fiscal
year 2015 and $858,000 above the budget request. Within
available funds, the recommendation provides $25,000,000 for
Coal Utilization Science; $1,500,000 for Energy Analyses;
$3,000,000 for University Training and Research; and
$21,500,000 for Plant Optimization Technologies, of which
$9,000,000 is for the Advanced Ultrasupercritical Program to
identify, test, qualify, and develop domestic suppliers capable
of producing components from high temperature materials and
$6,000,000 is for water management research and development.
The Committee is concerned with the public safety
implications of the transportation of crude oil and directs the
Department to examine methods to reduce its volatility prior to
shipment.
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Coal Research
and Development.--The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for NETL
Coal Research and Development, the same as fiscal year 2015 and
$15,969,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes that
this program was funded within Program Direction prior to
fiscal year 2012. The Department is directed to continue
including in the budget request all full-time equivalent
employee information within this program, as it does under
Program Direction.
The recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the Department
to expand its external agency activities to develop and test
commercially viable advanced separation technologies at proof-
of-concept or pilot scale that can be deployed near term for
the extraction and recovery of rare earth elements and minerals
from U.S. coal and coal byproduct source shaving the highest
potential for success. The Committee encourages the Department
to leverage the capabilities of outside applied researchers in
implementing these activities.
Supercritical Transformational Electric Power (STEP)
Generation Program.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000
within Fossil Energy for the STEP program, a joint initiative
with the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Solar Energy program
within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to
spur the development of the necessary designs, materials,
components, operation and control systems, sensors, and
understanding and characterization for large scale
supercritical carbon dioxide power conversion.
The supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle energy
conversion system transforms heat energy through use of a
supercritical fluid medium with no condensation rather than
through steam and water and offers the possibility of higher
cycle efficiency over steam turbines by increasing turbine
inlet temperatures. Within the Fossil Energy program, higher
inlet temperatures and materials development are already
underway to develop ultrasupercritical steam turbines at 700
degrees Celsius in conjunction with coal power plants. At this
inlet temperature, the supercritical carbon dioxide cycle-based
plant systems offer the potential for efficiency improvements
of up to four percent compared to steam systems.
The approach to develop supercritical carbon dioxide-based
power conversion is crosscutting except for the difference in
heat sources and, thus, the inlet temperatures expected.
Currently, only fossil heat sources have achieved the desired
high temperature inlet conditions necessary to achieve
significant thermal efficiency gains afforded by supercritical
carbon dioxide cycles. The Committee, therefore, has included
$15,000,000 for the Office of Fossil Energy to support the
technology development of supercritical carbon dioxide-based
power conversion from fossil heat sources, as well as
$5,000,000 for the Office of Nuclear Energy to support the
technology development of supercritical carbon dioxide-based
power conversion from nuclear energy.
NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $21,200,000 for Natural Gas
Technologies, $3,921,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $22,800,000
below the budget request.
Research.--The Committee recommends $21,200,000 for Natural
Gas Technologies Research. Within available funds, the
recommendation provides $12,500,000 for research into the cost-
effective and responsible extraction of methane hydrates, a
vast but currently inaccessible resource whose total energy
reserves rival those from all other known fossil fuels
combined; $5,200,000 for the Risk Based Data Management System;
and $3,500,000 for midstream natural gas infrastructure
research and development. The Committee directs that any
funding for midstream natural gas infrastructure research and
development be to enhance the deliverability efficiency of
natural gas. The Committee directs no funding for the
$10,000,000 budget request proposal to quantify emissions from
natural gas infrastructure.
Other than its support for the Risk Based Data Management
System, the recommendation provides no funding for the joint
research effort with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) into hydraulic
fracturing technologies. The Committee further reiterates its
previous direction that any funding in the area of hydraulic
fracturing, including any funding to support the proposed joint
effort with EPA and USGS, is for research into hydraulic
fracturing technologies that aims both to improve the economics
and recoverability of reserves and to address the health,
safety, and environmental risks of shale gas extraction.
UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for Unconventional
Fossil Energy Technologies, $8,500,000 above fiscal year 2015
and $13,000,000 above the budget request. Within available
funds, the recommendation provides not less than $12,500,000
for activities to improve the economic viability, safety, and
environmental responsibility of offshore exploration and
production in challenging conditions, of exploration and
production from unconventional natural gas and other petroleum
resources, and of production by small producers.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
Appropriation, 2015................................... $19,950,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 17,500,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 17,500,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... -2,450,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve
the national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900's,
and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 1996 required the sale of the Government's interest
in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR-1). To comply with this
requirement, the Elk Hills field in California was sold to
Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of
Elk Hills, the transfer of the oil shale reserves, and transfer
of administrative jurisdiction and environmental remediation of
the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 (NPR-2) to the Department of the
Interior, the Department retained one Naval Petroleum Reserve
property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR-3) in Wyoming
(Teapot Dome field). The Department issued a disposition plan
for NPR-3 in June 2013 and began implementation of the plan in
fiscal year 2014. Transfer of NPR-3 to a new owner occurred in
fiscal year 2015.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request supports post-sale
legacy environmental clean-up and remediation at NPR-1 and the
completion of the NPR-3 disposition plan, with activities
related to remediation of the landfill and the closeout of the
Casper office.
The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval
petroleum and oil shale reserves is $17,500,000, $2,450,000
below fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Appropriation, 2015................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 257,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 212,030,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +12,030,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -44,970,000
The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to
store petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a
major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry
out obligations under the international energy program. The
capacity of the Reserve is 727 million barrels. The current
inventory is approximately 691 million barrels or approximately
112 days of net import protection for the United States
economy.
The Committee recommendation for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve is $212,030,000, $12,030,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$44,970,000 below the budget request. The funding increase
above fiscal year 2015 is primarily for the major maintenance
program, to address aging infrastructure and deferred
maintenance backlog.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
Appropriation, 2015................................... $1,600,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 7,600,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 7,600,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the
Northeast began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy,
through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded
contracts for the lease of commercial storage facilities and
acquisition of heating oil. The purpose of the reserve is to
assure home heating oil supplies for the Northeastern States
during times of very low inventories and significant threats to
the immediate supply of heating oil. The Northeast Home Heating
Oil Reserve was established as a separate entity from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The reserve
contains one million barrels of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD),
which is the equivalent of three to four days of emergency
stocks in the Northeast.
The Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating
Oil Reserve is $7,600,000, $6,000,000 above fiscal year 2015
and the same as the budget request. After accounting for a
rescission of $6,000,000 of prior-year unobligated balances in
fiscal year 2015, the fiscal year 2016 program level is the
same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request.
Energy Information Administration
Appropriation, 2015................................... $117,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 131,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 117,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -14,000,000
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-
independent agency within the Department of Energy established
to provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related
information to the Congress, the executive branch, state
governments, industry, and the public. The Committee recommends
$117,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration, the
same as fiscal year 2015 and $14,000,000 below the budget
request.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriation, 2015................................... $246,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 220,185,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 229,193,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... -16,807,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +9,008,000
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup includes funds to manage
and remediate sites used for civilian, energy research, and
non-defense related activities. These past activities resulted
in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination that
requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. The
Committee recommends $229,193,000 for Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup, $16,807,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $9,008,000
above the budget request.
Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $61,715,000,
$18,334,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $7,708,000 above the
budget request. Within this amount, $9,500,000 is provided to
commence a pilot project to decommission and decontaminate the
Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor, as authorized by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Department recently conducted an
assessment of the hazards and costs of decontaminating the site
that indicates costs could reach as much as $80,400,000
depending on the extent of cleanup performed. The report
further indicated that there is considerable uncertainty
regarding the desired end state for the site and the Department
is not a party to the resolution of such matters. Nevertheless,
the costs and hazards associated with maintaining this vintage
reactor site will continue to grow. To meet the intent of the
authorized project while containing costs within the authorized
amount of $16,000,000, the Department is directed to utilize
innovative contracting strategies to demolish, dismantle, and
dispose of contaminated above-grade structures for the purposes
of minimizing annual site maintenance requirements until such
time as the regulatory end state for the site is fully resolved
by the responsible local stakeholders.
The Committee commends the Department for its work to
preserve cultural and sacred sites at the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory in California and encourages the Department to
continue working with the community and other federal, state,
and local agencies to ensure that this portion of the property
is preserved for future generations.
Mercury Storage Facility.--The Committee recommends
$1,300,000 for project planning, engineering, and design of a
facility for the long-term storage of elemental mercury, as
required by the Mercury Export Ban Act (MEBA) of 2008. MEBA
required the Department of Energy to designate at least one
facility capable of the long-term management and storage of
domestic elemental mercury, but the Department has not met the
deadlines required by the Act. The amounts provided allow the
Department to perform the requisite environmental reviews and
conduct other design and planning activities as needed to
produce a record of decision. The Department is directed to
provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act a report on its preferred alternative, other alternatives
that were considered, a rough order of magnitude cost estimate
for new construction of a mercury storage facility if new
construction is a feasible alternative, and an estimated fee
structure to recover the costs of operations and/or
construction of such facility. The report shall also identify
whether there are any potential conflicts that may be
encountered regarding competition with private sector disposal
and storage facilities.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriation, 2015................................... $625,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 542,289,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 625,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +82,711,000
The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to pay
for the cleanup of gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth,
Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and the East Tennessee Technology
Park, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee recommends
$625,000,000 for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, the same as fiscal
year 2015 and $82,711,000 above the budget request.
Oak Ridge.--The Committee recommends $163,946,000,
$3,952,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $9,711,000 above the
budget request.
Paducah.--The Committee recommends $193,652,000,
$13,563,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $25,000,000 above the
budget request. The Committee supports prompt development of a
long-term strategy to decontaminate and decommission the
Paducah gaseous diffusion plant. The Committee provides funding
above the budget request to expedite deactivation activities
that will minimize operating and maintenance costs while
developing those end state plans.
Portsmouth.--The Committee recommends $213,417,000,
$607,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $48,000,000 above the
budget request.
Title X Uranium/Thorium Reimbursements.--The Committee
recommends $32,959,000 to reimburse private licensees for the
cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites in
accordance with Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
$22,959,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget
request. The budget request included funding for Title X
activities for the first time since fiscal year 2008, despite
escalating unpaid claims. Fulfilling the obligation to fully
reimburse licensees is important to the health and safety of
the affected communities. Moving forward, the Committee expects
the Department to continue to provide sufficient resources
within future budgets to reimburse licensees for approved claim
balances.
Uranium Transfers.--The Department has been considering
ways to alternatively assess the impact of its uranium
transfers to meet legislative requirements. Not later than 90
days after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall
provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress a report that includes all reports, analyses, data,
and methodologies used to arrive at the latest Secretarial
determination; any additional information that the Department
determines should be considered when evaluating the impacts of
its uranium transfers; a description of the legal authorities
under which the Secretary transferred uranium in fiscal year
2015; and recommendations to minimize the impact of uranium
transfers on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, and
enrichment industries, including any actions that would require
new authority for the Department to implement.
Science
Appropriation, 2015................................... $5,071,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 5,339,794,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 5,100,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +29,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -239,794,000
The Office of Science funds basic science research across
national laboratories, universities, and other research
institutions in support of American innovation and the
Department's energy-focused missions. Through research in
physics, biology, chemistry, and other science disciplines,
these activities expand scientific understanding and secure the
nation's leadership in energy innovation. The Office of Science
funds a significant portion of science research nationwide.
The Science program office includes Advanced Scientific
Computing Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and
Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy
Physics, Nuclear Physics, Workforce Development for Teachers
and Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Safeguards
and Security, and Program Direction. The Committee has placed a
high priority on funding these activities in fiscal year 2016,
given the private sector is not likely to fund research whose
findings either have high non-commercial value or are not
likely to be commercialized in the near or medium term.
However, this work is vital to sustaining the scientific
leadership of the United States and can provide the
underpinnings for valuable intellectual property in the coming
decades.
The Committee recommendation is $5,100,000,000 for the
Office of Science, $29,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$239,794,000 below the budget request.
The Committee recognizes the importance of workplace
diversity in the Department of Energy's National Laboratories.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue to develop
and broaden partnerships with minority serving institutions,
including Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) and Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). In particular, the
Committee encourages programs involving undergraduate research
experiences, high speed computing access and education,
nonproliferation studies, and research inclusive of the social
sciences.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program develops
and hosts some of the world's fastest computing and network
capabilities to enable science and energy modeling, simulation,
and research. The Committee recommends $537,539,000 for
Advanced Scientific Computing Research, $3,461,000 below fiscal
year 2015 and $83,455,000 below the budget request.
Exascale Computing.--The Committee continues to support the
exascale initiative, which seeks to develop the next generation
of computing systems three orders of magnitude faster than
today's fastest systems. This decade-long effort is critical to
enabling basic and energy-focused science research not
previously possible and to maintaining the nation's global
leadership in computing technologies. However, the Committee is
aware that many challenges still remain towards the development
of exascale computing machines. The Department is directed to
deliver to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act a report on the plan for delivering exascale capabilities
within the Office of Science. At a minimum, the report shall
include an assessment of the technical challenges of exascale
computing architecture and develop a plan for addressing these
issues. The plan should take into account various budget
scenarios when developing funding profiles.
The Committee encourages the Department to support Highly
Integrated Photonics to accelerate computing research leading
to exascale computing while reducing computing energy
consumption by a factor of 100 or more. The program is
encouraged to work with small business entities to support
these needed technology applications.
The recommendation includes $99,000,000 for exascale
activities within the Office of Science.
High Performance Computing and Network Facilities.--In
addition to the long-term exascale intiative, the Committee
supports continued upgrade and operation of the Leadership
Computing Facilities at Argonne and Oak Ridge National
Laboratories and of the High Performance Production Computing
capabilities at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These
systems' capabilities are a critical component of science and
industrial research and development across the nation, and they
should be maintained as world-leading facilities. The
recommendation includes $77,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership
Computing Facility; $101,000,000 for the Oak Ridge Leadership
Computing Facility; and $76,000,000 for the National Energy
Research Scientific Computing Center at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory. Within available funds, the recommendation
includes $8,000,000 for the Computational Science Graduate
Fellowship Program.
Brain Initiative.--The Committee encourages the Department
to work with the National Science Foundation and the National
Institutes of Health on a national brain observatory to
leverage its high performance computing capabilities in order
to advance a deeper understanding of the brain and how it
works. This collaboration will lead to novel brain imaging
technologies and brain inspired computing applications that
will improve the Department's high performance computing
capabilities and expertise.
For mathematical, computational, and computer sciences
research, the recommendation includes not less than
$175,503,000.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The Basic Energy Sciences program funds basic research in
materials science, chemistry, geoscience, and bioscience. The
science breakthroughs in this program enable a broad array of
innovation in energy technologies and other industries critical
to American economic competitiveness. The Committee recommends
$1,770,306,000 for Basic Energy Sciences, $37,106,000 above
fiscal year 2015 and $78,994,000 below the budget request.
The program's budget consists of funding for research, the
operation of existing user facilities, and the design,
procurement, and construction of new facilities and equipment.
The long-term success of the program hinges on striking a
careful balance among these three areas. However, the
increasing level of research commitments and completion of new
facilities make it difficult to adequately fund all three
components of the Basic Energy Sciences program within existing
budgetary constraints. The Committee strongly cautions the
Department against assuming an ever-increasing budget when
planning the balance among facility runtime, construction, and
research funding.
Research.--The Committee recommends $1,578,440,000 for
Basic Energy Sciences research, $16,060,000 below fiscal year
2015 and $70,560,000 below the budget request. Within available
funds, the recommendation provides $97,800,000 for Energy
Frontier Research Centers.
For materials science and engineering research, the
recommendation includes $377,085,000, of which $14,355,000 is
for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
and $8,000,000 is for Computational Materials Sciences. All
other activities within this subprogram are funded at the
requested level, including $24,137,000 for the fourth year of
the Batteries and Energy Storage Innovation Hub.
For chemical sciences, geosciences, and biosciences, the
recommendation includes $305,974,000. The recommendation
includes the requested level of $15,000,000 for the Fuels from
Sunlight Innovation Hub, which begins the first year of its
second five-year term in fiscal year 2016.
For scientific user facilities, the recommendation includes
$895,381,000, of which $32,168,000 is for research; and
$35,500,000 is for major items of equipment. The recommendation
includes $797,049,000 for facilities operations of the nation's
synchrotron radiation light sources, high flux neutron sources,
and nanoscale science research centers, of which $245,419,000
is for the High-Flux Neutron Sources and $443,150,000 is for
the Synchrotron Radiation Light Sources.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $191,866,000 for
Basic Energy Sciences construction, $53,166,000 above fiscal
year 2015 and $8,434,000 below the budget request.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
The Biological and Environmental Research program supports
advances in energy technologies and related science through
research into complex biological and environmental systems. The
Committee recommends $538,000,000 for Biological and
Environmental Research, $54,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$74,400,000 below the budget request.
The Committee continues to support the Biological Systems
Science subprogram, which focuses on the biology of plant and
microbes with the ultimate goal of enabling future generations
of biofuels from a variety of sustainable domestic biomass
sources. In addition to reducing our nation's dependence on
petroleum-based fuels, the biofuels produced through this
program's science breakthroughs can lower the cost of, improve
the sustainability of, and ease industry's transition to those
fuel alternatives.
The recommendation includes $75,000,000 for the fourth year
of the second five-year term of the three Bioenergy Research
Centers, the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request.
The Committee supports the Department's funding for
academia to perform climate model studies that include the
collection and evaluation of atmospheric data from satellite
observations obtained in cooperation with NASA. Satellite
observations of the atmosphere within the context of the Earth
as a global system provide information that is critical in the
interpretation of earth-based observations.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports basic research
and experimentation aiming to harness nuclear fusion for energy
production. The Committee recommends $467,600,000 for Fusion
Energy Sciences, $100,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$47,600,000 above the budget request. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides not less than $69,500,000 for the
National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX); not less than
$80,000,000 for DIII-D; and not less than $18,000,000 for
Alcator C-Mod.
Research.--The Committee recommends $317,600,000 for the
domestic fusion program, $100,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$47,600,000 above the budget request. The domestic fusion
program is a critical component of United States science
leadership and a necessary building block of any successful
fusion project, including the ITER project.
For the science subprogram, which advances the predictive
understanding of plasma confinement, dynamics, and interactions
with surrounding materials, the recommendation provides
$188,860,000, of which $35,000,000 is for DIII-D Research;
$6,145,000 is for Alcator C-Mod research; $12,000,000 is for
International Research; $30,500,000 is for NSTX research;
$17,500,000 is for High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas;
$25,000,000 is for Theory; and $9,500,000 is for Scientific
Discovery through Advanced Computing.
For facilities operations, which support operation,
maintenance, and modifications to the research equipment and
diagnostics at the major U.S. fusion facilities, the
recommendation provides $101,330,000, of which $45,000,000 is
for DIII-D; $39,000,000 is for NSTX operations; and $11,855,000
is for Alcator C-Mod.
For enabling research and development, which develops and
continually improves the hardware, materials and technology
incorporated into existing and next-generation fusion research
facilities, the recommendation provides $27,410,000, of which
$14,000,000 is for Materials Research.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for
the U.S. contribution to the ITER project, the same as fiscal
year 2015 and the budget request.
The Committee continues to believe the ITER project
represents an important step forward for energy sciences and
has the potential to revolutionize the current understanding of
fusion energy. In 2013, the third biennial management
assessment report identified eleven management challenges that
threaten the success of the ITER project. The Committee
recognizes the continued efforts of the ITER organization in
responding to these recommendations and expects that ITER's new
leadership will implement reforms in a timely manner. The
success of ITER depends on making continued project management
progress and the Committee includes funding for the ITER
Council to continue its implementation efforts. Should the ITER
Council fail to reform the project management culture, the
Committee will be forced to reconsider its support for the
international project.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
The High Energy Physics program supports fundamental
research into the elementary constituents of matter and energy,
and ultimately into the nature of space and time. The program
focuses on particle physics theory and experimentation in three
areas: the energy frontier, which investigates new particles
and fundamental forces through high-energy experimentation; the
intensity frontier, which focuses on rare events to better
understand our fundamental model of the universe's elementary
constituents; and the cosmic frontier, which investigates the
nature of the universe and its form of matter and energy on
cosmic scales. The Committee recommends $776,000,000 for High
Energy Physics, $10,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$12,000,000 below the budget request.
Within available funds, the recommendation includes
$22,000,000 for the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and
its alternatives, to include $4,000,000 for research and
development and $18,000,000 for project engineering and design
activities. The Committee recognizes the importance of this
project to maintaining American leadership in the intensity
frontier and to basic science discovery of neutrino and
standard model physics. However, the Committee also recognizes
that LBNF construction must be affordable under existing
budgetary constraints.
Research.--The Committee recommends $717,900,000 for High
Energy Physics research, $11,100,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$14,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee strongly supports the Department's efforts to
advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics
Prioritization Panel and urges the Department to maintain a
careful balance among competing priorities and among small,
medium, and large scale projects.
For energy frontier experimental physics, the
recommendation provides $154,555,000. The recommendation funds
all activities within energy frontier experimental physics at
the requested level.
For intensity frontier experimental physics, the
recommendation provides $246,196,000. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $55,924,000 for research;
$157,572,000 for facility operations and experimental support,
of which $135,100,000 is for Fermi Complex Operations and
$15,000,000 is for Homestake Mine; and $32,700,000 for
Projects, of which $10,200,000 is for the Muon g-2 Experiment
and $18,500,000 is for Future Projects research and
development.
For cosmic frontier experimental physics, the
recommendation provides $119,325,000. Within available funds,
the recommendation provides $50,079,000 for Research;
$10,545,000 for Facility Operations and Experimental Support;
and $58,701,000 for Projects, of which $40,800,000 is for the
Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Camera and $15,800,000 is for
the Second Generation Dark Matter experiments.
For other subprograms that comprise the high energy physics
program, the recommendation provides $60,317,000 for
theoretical and computational physics; $115,369,000 for
advanced technology research and development, of which
$39,924,000 is for General Accelerators; and not less than
$5,000,000 for Accelerator Stewardship.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $58,100,000 for
High Energy Physics construction, $21,100,000 above fiscal year
2015 and $2,000,000 above the budget request. Within available
funds, the recommendation includes $40,100,000 for the Muon to
Electron Conversion Experiment.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
The Nuclear Physics program supports basic research into
the fundamental particles that compose nuclear matter, how they
interact, and how they combine to form the different types of
matter observed in the universe today. The Committee recommends
$616,165,000 for Nuclear Physics, $20,665,000 above fiscal year
2015 and $8,435,000 below the budget request.
Operations and Maintenance.--The Committee recommends
$510,665,000 for Nuclear Physics Operations and Maintenance,
$21,665,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,435,000 below the
budget request. For medium energy nuclear physics, the
recommendation provides $158,062,000, of which $100,170,000 is
for operations at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility to support runtime at the 12GeV Continuous Electron
Beam Accelerator Facility. The Committee remains supportive of
the advanced nuclear physics occurring at the facility and
encourages a quick transition to operations once the detector
upgrades are complete. For heavy ion nuclear physics, the
recommendation provides $204,931,000, of which $168,500,000 is
for operations at Brookhaven National Lab to support runtime at
the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. All activities within the
low energy nuclear physics, nuclear theory, and isotope
development and production for research and applications
subprograms are funded at the requested level.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $105,500,000 for
Nuclear Physics construction, $1,000,000 below fiscal year 2015
and $2,000,000 below the request. The recommended level of
funding includes $98,000,000 for the Facility for Rare Isotope
Beams.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS
The Committee recommends $20,500,000 for workforce
development for teachers and scientists, $1,000,000 above
fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommends $89,890,000 for Science
Laboratories Infrastructure, $10,290,000 above fiscal year 2015
and $23,710,000 below the budget request.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for
Science Laboratories Infrastructure construction, $6,010,000
below fiscal year 2015 and $8,910,000 below the request.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommends $103,000,000 to meet safeguards
and security requirements at Office of Science facilities,
$10,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget
request.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommends $181,000,000 for Science Program
Direction, $2,700,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $6,400,000
below the request.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, 2015................................... $- - -
Budget estimate, 2016................................. - - -
Recommended, 2016..................................... 150,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +150,000,000
The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for
Nuclear Waste Disposal, $150,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$150,000,000 above the budget request, to continue the
Department of Energy's statutorily required activities for the
Yucca Mountain license application. Within available funds, the
Department is directed to reestablish its capability to respond
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the adjudicatory
process, and to otherwise fully support the Yucca Mountain
licensing process. The recommendation includes support for
affected units of local government who have formally consented
to host Yucca Mountain.
The Committee reiterates that the Administration's repeated
statements that Yucca Mountain is not a ``workable option''
ignores both the consent of the host community and the
expressed intent of Congress.
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
Appropriation, 2015................................... $280,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 325,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 280,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -45,000,000
The Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E)
supports research aimed at rapidly developing energy
technologies whose development and commercialization are too
risky to attract sufficient private sector investment but are
capable of significantly changing the energy sector to address
our critical economic and energy security challenges. Projects
funded by ARPA-E include such wide-ranging areas as production
processes for transportation fuel alternatives that can reduce
our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling
technologies with exceptionally high energy efficiency, and
improvements in petroleum refining processes.
The Committee recommends $280,000,000 for the Advanced
Research Projects Agency--Energy, the same as fiscal year 2015
and $45,000,000 below the budget request. Within available
funds, the recommendation provides $28,000,000 for Program
Direction.
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2015................................... $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 42,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 42,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS
Appropriation, 2015................................... $-25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. -25,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... -25,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2015................................... $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 17,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 17,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Committee recommends administrative expenses of
$42,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget
request, which are offset by fees collected pursuant to section
1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act, for a final net appropriation
of $17,000,000.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
Appropriation, 2015................................... $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 6,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 6,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
established a direct loan program to support the development of
advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the
United States. The program provides loans to automobile and
automobile part manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping,
expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the
United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or
qualified components, and for associated engineering
integration costs.
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $2,000,000
above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. The
funds provided support administrative operations only.
Departmental Administration
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2015................................... $245,142,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 270,682,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 247,420,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +2,278,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -23,262,000
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2015................................... $-119,171,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. -117,171,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... -117,171,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2015................................... $125,971,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 153,511,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 130,249,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +4,278,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -23,262,000
The Committee recommendation for Departmental
Administration is $247,420,000, $2,278,000 more than fiscal
year 2015 and $23,262,000 less than the budget request. The
recommendation for revenues is $117,171,000 as requested,
resulting in a net appropriation of $130,249,000. Funding
recommended for Departmental Administration provides for
general management and program support functions benefiting all
elements of the Department of Energy, including the National
Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array
of Headquarters activities not directly associated with the
execution of specific programs.
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.--The Committee
recommends $16,000,000, to coordinate and implement energy
management, conservation, education, and delivery systems for
Native Americans. The Committee includes full funding for the
Department's request in this account rather than in a new
account, as requested.
Economic Impact and Diversity.--The recommendation includes
$10,000,000 for Economic Impact and Diversity, $3,800,000 more
than fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request.
International Affairs.--The recommendation includes
$13,000,000 for International Affairs, the same as fiscal year
2015 and $10,600,000 less than the budget request.
Office of Management.--The recommendation includes
$64,598,000 for the Office of Management. The recommendation
includes an increase of $1,652,000 for cost estimating.
Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis.--The
recommendation includes $31,297,000, $3,703,000 less than the
budget request. The Committee includes requested funding to
support the Quadrennial Energy Review.
Working Capital Fund.--The Committee is concerned that the
Department is not clearly reporting which programs, projects,
or activities are paying into the Working Capital Fund. The
Committee already provides funding for the Working Capital Fund
within funds for program direction in various accounts and is
concerned that the practice of charging additional costs beyond
those reported is duplicative, not transparent, and may not
meet the intended purpose for which those funds were
appropriated. Not later than 30 days after the enactment of
this Act, the Department shall provide to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report of charges
to each appropriation by program, project, or activity in
fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016 for the Working Capital Fund.
The report shall detail the Department's existing legal
authorities and enabling statutes that permit the Department to
pay these expenses from the particular programs, projects, or
activities identified.
Renewable Fuel Standard.--Under section 211(o)(9)(B) of the
Clean Air Act, a small refinery may petition the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator for an exemption from the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) on the basis that the refinery
experiences a ``disproportionate economic hardship'' under the
RFS. When evaluating a petition, the Administrator consults
with the Secretary of Energy to determine whether a
``disproportionate economic hardship'' exists. According to the
Department of Energy's March 2011 Small Refinery Exemption
Study, a ``disproportionate economic hardship must encompass
two broad components: a high cost of compliance relative to the
industry average, and an effect sufficient to cause a
significant impairment of the refinery operations.'' The
Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to clarify that if
either of these two components exists, the Department shall at
a minimum recommend to EPA a 50 percent waiver of RFS
requirements for the petitioner. The Committee also directs the
Secretary to seek small refinery comment before making changes
to its scoring metrics for small refinery petitions for RFS
waivers.
Support for Ukraine.--In consideration of Russian
aggression in Ukraine, the Committee directs the Department of
Energy to examine the potential for leveraging its expertise in
support of energy-related issues in Ukraine. Not later than 120
days after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall
report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress on what technical assistance the Department could
provide to Ukraine.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, 2015................................... $40,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 46,424,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 46,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +5,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -424,000
The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit,
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct
management and administrative deficiencies that create
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste,
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and
operations. The investigative function provides for the
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
The Committee recommendation is $46,000,000, $5,500,000
more than fiscal year 2015 and $424,000 less than the budget
request.
To the extent possible, the Inspector General shall ensure
the findings of its investigative reports are made available to
the Committee and the public, particularly where revised
versions of its reports may be required in order to protect
privacy or remove other pieces of protected information that
would otherwise limit distribution to internal Official Use
Only.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the
Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) consist of Weapons Activities, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and Federal Salaries
and Expenses; outside of the NNSA, these include Defense
Environmental Cleanup, Defense Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning, and Other Defense
Activities. Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided
below.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S.
national security through the military application of nuclear
technology and reducing the global danger from the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous
agency within the Department, carries out these
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000, the NNSA is responsible for the management and operation
of the nation's nuclear weapons complex, naval reactors, and
nuclear nonproliferation activities.
Weapons Activities
Appropriation, 2015................................... $8,186,657,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 8,846,948,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 8,713,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +526,343,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -133,948,000
Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety,
security, reliability, and effectiveness of the nation's
nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing. The
Committee's recommendation simplifies the budget structure for
Weapons Activities into four main elements: Directed Stockpile
Work; Research, Development, Technology and Engineering;
Infrastructure and Operations; and Security. The Committee
recommends a fiscal year 2016 level of $8,713,000,000 for
Weapons Activities, $526,343,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$133,948,000 below the budget request.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK
Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including
maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification,
dismantlement, and disposal activities. The Committee
recommends $3,354,296,000 for Directed Stockpile Work,
$661,708,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $167,037,000 above the
budget request.
Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends full
funding for the NNSA's life extension programs, including the
ongoing refurbishment efforts for the B61, W76, and W88
warheads. The Committee also recommends initiating a new life
extension program for the W80 that will support development of
a Long Range Standoff Missile (LRSO). While the Committee has
not established a formal definition of what constitutes a
``life extension program'' compared to other major
refurbishment efforts, the Committee will consider
refurbishment work with the purpose of extending the life of an
existing warhead with a total cost of greater than
$1,000,000,000 to be a life extension program. The Committee is
concerned about the aggressive schedule to accomplish the
delivery of concurrent life extension programs for the B61 and
W88 in the 2020-2025 timeframe. Such peaks in the NNSA's
production lines are difficult and expensive to manage. The
Committee encourages the NNSA to investigate work levelling
strategies for the W88 that would help alleviate these
pressures.
W88 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$220,176,000, $54,776,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same
as the budget request. In fiscal year 2015, initial development
work for this program was funded under the title ``W88 Alt
370''. While the NNSA requested to continue designating this
program as the W88 Alt 370, the size and scope of the work now
planned for the W88 merits increased transparency and
integrated management as part of a formal acquisition program.
The NNSA is directed to integrate the costs of replacing
limited life components concurrently with other refurbishment
activities in its selected acquisition reports for the W88 life
extension program.
W80-4 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$195,037,000, the same as the budget request. In fiscal year
2015, initial conceptual work for this program was funded at
$9,418,000 under the title ``Cruise Missile Warhead Life
Extension Study''. While the recommendation provides the full
funding amount requested for the W80-4, continued support for
the NNSA's requested schedule is contingent on the ability of
the NNSA to meet the Committee-directed reporting requirements
in a timely manner and on the synchronization of this work with
the schedule for the LRSO in the budget for the Department of
Defense.
The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has already
settled on two alternatives for the W80-4 that are more
expensive than the B61 life extension program and will require
funding peaks that will compete with other planned major multi-
year programs and projects. The NNSA has a history of spending
large amounts of funding to develop alternatives that are
tabled in order to pursue a more affordable option. The NNSA
must demonstrate it is able to overcome these past failures by
changing the way it conducts its alternative analyses. To
provide enhanced accountability for the alternatives being
pursued and to ensure that other options were not prematurely
excluded, the Committee directs the NNSA to task the JASONs
Defense Advisory Group or another independent group to perform
a red team assessment of the NNSA's alternatives selected for
the W80-4 life extension program. Not later than 180 days after
the enactment of this Act, the red team should provide a report
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
that identifies whether additional alternatives exist that
might improve the affordability of the program and reduce
overall programmatic risks.
Research and Development Support.--The Committee recommends
$41,059,000, $15,559,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,900,000
above the budget request. The recommendation includes funding
above the budget request for maintenance of the nuclear testing
heritage as requested within Program Readiness.
Strategic Materials.--The Committee recommends
$589,176,000, $589,176,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$174,217,000 above the budget request. The recommendation for
Strategic Materials includes funding for uranium, plutonium and
tritium sustainment activities that were requested as ``Nuclear
Materials Commodities''. The recommendation further expands the
request to specify funds for the management of nuclear
materials to other materials of strategic significance by
including funding requested for Material Recycling and
Recovery, Storage, Nuclear Materials Integration, and other
planning efforts within Strategic Materials Sustainment.
Domestic Uranium Enrichment.--The Committee recommends
$50,000,000, $47,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000
below the budget request. The bill contains a provision that
provides special reprogramming authority of an additional
$50,000,000 subject to the Committee's normal notification
guidelines. The Committee is awaiting the results of a directed
interagency study that will revalidate the tritium and low
enriched uranium requirements to meet national security needs
and that will identify a preferred approach to meeting those
requirements. However, the goals of the demonstration project
have been successfully met and there is little value to
indefinitely operating the centrifuges if the Department cannot
identify a near-term need to construct a national security
train of centrifuges. The recommendation will provide
flexibility to meet national security needs should decisive
near-term needs with a clear funding strategy be identified.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING
The NNSA's Research, Development, Technology, and
Engineering (RDT&E) activities focus on the development and
maintenance of critical capabilities, tools, and processes that
support science-based stockpile stewardship and continued
certification of the stockpile in the absence of underground
nuclear testing. For RDT&E, the Committee recommends
$1,774,174,000, $7,983,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$2,329,000 below the budget request.
The Committee supports maintaining a robust scientific
enterprise that leverages the unique attributes of the national
security laboratories as the foundation of a science-based
stockpile stewardship program. The NNSA reduced funding for
science and engineering activities in its budget request and
the Committee is concerned that undercutting funding for such
activities could undermine the long-term capability of the NNSA
to maintain an aging nuclear stockpile. The NNSA is pursuing
several unconventional and complex options for stockpile
stewardship that will present significant certification
challenges. Based on an independent review of these approaches
that was directed by the Committee, it is apparent there are
still significant scientific and engineering hurdles to
overcome before such approaches can be adopted. The Committee
will continue to favor stockpile proposals that are
conservative and well understood in order to minimize the
introduction of unnecessary risks into the stockpile.
Nevertheless, the Committee supports continued funding to
pursue experimental activities that will improve the basic
fundamentals of weapons physics and advance concepts to improve
safety, security, or maintainability.
Science.--The Committee recommends $412,947,000, $856,000
above fiscal year 2015 and $23,333,000 above the budget
request. Within this amount, the recommendation provides
increases above the request for Advanced Certification to
better understand the properties of plutonium and to advance
concepts for pit reuse. Within funding for Primary Assessment
Technologies, the recommendation includes funding to expand
predictive science capabilities to designs outside those in the
current U.S. stockpile to enhance U.S. capabilities to assess
foreign state weapons activities. Within Advanced Radiography,
the recommendation includes no funding for new radiography
capabilities at U1a. The NNSA did not provide a project data
sheet with a multi-year funding plan as required by the
Committee.
Academic Alliances and Partnerships.--The Committee
recommends $49,800,000 for Academic Alliances and Partnerships.
Funding for these activities was requested within the Science
and Site Stewardship programs. Within this amount, $33,300,000
is provided for the Stewardship Science Academic Alliance
Program. The NNSA reduced funding for its university
partnership program in its budget request by 7.5 percent.
Undercutting these foundational partnerships will ultimately
weaken the scientific base upon which the NNSA relies to
certify the nuclear stockpile. Also within this amount,
$16,500,000 is provided for the Minority Serving Institution
Partnerships Program. The Committee supports the educational
and research partnerships of the Department and encourages
additional partnerships to be developed with minority serving
institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI)
to ensure diversity within the next generation of scientists
and researchers addressing nuclear security and environmental
management issues.
Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield.--The Committee
recommends $511,050,000, $1,845,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$8,600,000 above the budget request. Within these funds,
$68,000,000 is for the OMEGA Laser Facility at the University
of Rochester, $322,500,000 is for the National Ignition
Facility, and $7,000,000 is for the Naval Research Laboratory
Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee
recommends $605,000,000, $7,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$18,006,000 below the budget request.
Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends
$113,800,000, $6,600,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $16,256,000
below the budget request. Within this amount, $16,000,000 is
provided for Additive Manufacturing. The budget request applied
development of additive manufacturing capabilities holistically
across the enterprise, but the Committee is concerned that such
an approach reduces transparency into how well and how fast the
NNSA is developing these advanced production technologies. In
addition, the NNSA must apply a certain degree of integrated
management to these efforts to promote a domestic contractor
supplier base. The recommendation does not preclude the use or
development of additive production technologies within funds
for life extension programs or other areas where those costs
are appropriately attributed to that effort. In addition, the
Committee is concerned that the full scope of work requested
within Advanced Manufacturing did not meet Congressional intent
of the program. This activity is not intended to fund the
production readiness costs of life extension programs that are
in phase 6.3 and higher. Such costs should be managed and fully
accounted for as part of the appropriate life extension
program.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS
Infrastructure and Operations (formerly Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities) provides consolidated funding
for the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization of NNSA
facilities and infrastructure. The Committee recommends
$2,228,164,000 for Infrastructure and Operations, $194,764,000
above fiscal year 2015 and $1,173,683,000 above the budget
request.
The recommendation eliminates duplication by consolidating
the budget request for three separate infrastructure accounts
(Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, Infrastructure and
Safety, and Site Stewardship) within the recommendation for
Infrastructure and Operations. The recommendation further
simplifies the budget structure by combining separately-
identified funding lines for certain activities that did not
have clear infrastructure-based performance goals. The
Committee does not support changing the budget structure each
year to conform to internal organizational changes and views
this matter to be largely one of agency budget execution that
has no relationship to the purpose for which funds are
appropriated by the Congress. The Committee's continued support
for budget flexibility for maintenance and operations across
the NNSA sites and for recapitalization projects is contingent
on the NNSA's willingness to provide the Committee with the
information it needs to conduct proper oversight of these
activities.
Safety and Environmental Operations.--The Committee
recommends $107,701,000 for the Nuclear Criticality Safety
Program, Nuclear Safety Research and Development, Containers,
and Long-Term Stewardship activities. The NNSA is directed to
provide a funding table that details the funding amounts to be
provided to each of these four program elements in future
budget requests.
Maintenance and Repair of Facilities.--The Committee
recommends $277,000,000. The recommendation includes
$50,000,000 above the budget request to address the backlog of
deferred maintenance across the NNSA's nuclear security
enterprise. Within this amount, $25,000,000 is for maintenance
of the NNSA's High-Risk Excess Facilities to improve the
transparency of how much is being spent to indefinitely
maintain these deteriorating facilities and to allow the
Committee to better conduct oversight of the adequacy of the
NNSA's maintenance program. The NNSA is directed to provide a
funding table that details the site splits for maintenance in
future budget requests.
Recapitalization.--The Committee recommends $352,524,000.
Within this amount, $253,724,000 is provided for basic
infrastructure projects to be executed by the Office of
Infrastructure and Safety and $98,800,000 is provided for
capability-based investments to be executed by the Office of
Defense Programs. As a result of progress in establishing a
planning basis to formulate and execute its recapitalization
efforts, the Committee recommendation does not designate
specific funding by individual recapitalization projects.
Funding for Recapitalization is intended for projects that are
clearly defined and ready to be executed. The recommendation
does not include funds requested for ``reserves'' and
``contingency'' purposes since funds to meet emergent needs are
provided within Operation of Facilities and Maintenance and
Repair of Facilities.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $660,149,000,
$235,149,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $41,000 below the
budget request. The Committee is concerned that there is little
accountability for advancing construction projects at the early
design stages and that advance funds are being requested to
initiate new construction without providing the cost and
schedule projections for which the NNSA is accountable. Without
this information, the Committee cannot determine whether the
projects requested are affordable and are being managed
appropriately so that it may approve new start authority.
Previously, the Committee funded initial project engineering
and design (PED) in a separate project and then considered new
start authority to proceed to construction at a later date when
more information was available. In order to preserve the
Committee's ability to approve new start authority, the
recommendation provides funds separately for PED and directs
the NNSA to request funds separately for PED in future budget
requests. The Committee will consider a request to initiate a
new construction start when the Department is prepared to
provide an accurate multi-year cost and schedule estimate with
its budget request.
16-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, Various
Locations.--The Committee recommends $34,103,000. Within this
amount, $18,105,000 is for Transuranic Liquid Waste Facility
Design, $13,998,000 is for TA-55 Reinvestment Phase 3, and
$2,000,000 is for the Y-12 Emergency Operations Center. The
Committee shall consider separate new start authority to
commence construction on these projects upon submission of a
request that details the multi-year cost and schedule
projections for each project.
16-D-621 TA-3 Substation Replacement, LANL.--The Committee
recommends $25,000,000, the same as the budget request. No
funding is available for construction until the NNSA provides
the details of its cost and schedule performance baseline. The
recommendation for substation construction at Los Alamos
National Laboratory does not constitute a new start for a
similar planned replacement at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and the NNSA should request separate funding for
this project in a future budget request.
11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Phase 2, LANL.--The
Committee recommends $3,903,000, the same as the budget
request. The Committee notes that full funding was provided for
this project in fiscal year 2015 and the funds requested in the
fiscal year 2016 budget request are due to cost growth
associated with project bids being significantly higher than
the NNSA's initial estimates.
07-D-220 Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility,
LANL.--The Committee recommends $11,533,000, the same as the
budget request. The Committee notes that costs have grown to
$82,694,000, an increase of $15,481,000 or 23 percent, since
construction funds for the Low Level Liquid Waste Facility
portion of this project were first requested and provided. The
NNSA spent $28,443,000 advancing a design concept for this
project that was determined to be unaffordable several years
later. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned about this and
other projects at Los Alamos because the NNSA's contractor does
not have a certified earned value management system against
which performance can be appropriately tracked and managed. The
NNSA is directed to provide to the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress not later than 90 days after the
enactment of this Act a report on the root causes of the cost
growth of this project.
06-D-141, Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), Y-12.--The
Committee recommends $430,000,000, $95,000,000 above fiscal
year 2015 and the same as the budget request. Within this
amount, $289,128,000 is for Project Engineering and Design and
$140,872,000 is for Site Preparation. None of these funds shall
be available for Site Preparation or other construction
activities until the NNSA submits an independently-verified
cost estimate for the entire scope of the project that details
the cost and schedule targets for each planned subproject to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has not fully
addressed the root causes of its past project management
failures for major construction projects. Few details have been
solidified on the UPF project and the NNSA's inability to lay
out any of its plans in its budget request is indicative of the
challenges that the NNSA faces in delivering this facility. The
NNSA is deviating from the formal processes set out in DOE
Order 413.3B for the reaffirmation of critical decision-1 and
the project plans show significant funds being spent for
construction activities before the project baseline is set and
without formal approval from the acquisition executive, in this
case the Deputy Secretary of Energy. Further, the NNSA
conducted an internal peer review that indicated a potential
for cost growth above the $6,500,000,000 cost target. The
Committee will continue to closely monitor progress on the
project to ensure these and other issues are being addressed.
04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR)
Replacement Project, LANL.--The Committee recommends
$155,610,000. Within this amount, $117,000,000 is provided for
the RLUOB Equipment Installation, Phase 2 subproject and
$38,610,000 is provided for the PF-4 Equipment Installation
subproject.
SECURITY
Defense Nuclear Security.--The Committee recommends
$682,891,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, $46,768,000 above
fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000 above the budget request.
The recommendation provides additional funding above the
budget request to meet the lifecycle need to replace security
cameras and to meet shortfalls anticipated in funding for
protective forces at Y-12 and other NNSA sites. The NNSA shall
keep the Committee informed as it analyzes the changes to its
cost accounting structures for the combined contract at Y-12
and Pantex.
Security Improvements Program.--The Committee recommends
$35,000,000 to commence a Security Improvements Program that is
intended to address the backlog of security projects that must
be performed over the next several years. The NNSA has
identified over $2,000,000,000 in security infrastructure
upgrades that are needed, but the NNSA has not adequately
prioritized these upgrades in its budget request. The
Committee's recommendation enhances the visibility of these
efforts and ensures funding is available to meet these
additional costs that are above and beyond the base operating
and maintenance costs of the NNSA's physical security program.
To the extent possible, the NNSA should establish clear scope,
cost, and schedule requirements by performing work as discrete
projects. Projects with a total project cost greater than
$10,000,000 that represent capability upgrades and new
construction shall be performed as line-item construction in
accordance with existing statutory requirements. Projects that
are needed to replace, maintain, and improve the reliability of
aging systems shall be conducted as operating projects to
expedite delivery and reduce overall costs.
The Committee is concerned that the NNSA terminated the Y-
12 Security Improvements Project without completing the full
scope of work planned. The budget request also defers
improvements that are needed at the Pantex Plant. The NNSA
shall ensure that these investments are prioritized in
developing its multi-year plans for its Security Improvements
Program.
14-D-710 Device Assembly Facility Argus Installation
Project.--The Committee recommends $13,000,000, the same as the
budget request.
Information Technology and Cyber Security.--The Committee
recommends $157,588,000 for Information Technology and Cyber
Security, $22,058,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as
the budget request.
Secure Transportation Asset.--The Committee recommends
$232,000,000 for Secure Transportation Asset, $13,000,000 above
fiscal year 2015 and $19,610,000 below the budget request. The
budget request included a significant ramp up in the size of
the federal workforce, but the NNSA has not provided any
information to justify such an increase and reductions in the
planned transport of mixed oxide feedstock will reduce
requirements.
LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS
The Committee provides $283,887,000 for payments into the
legacy University of California contractor employee defined
benefit pension plans, $23,171,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
the same as the budget request.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2015................................... $1,616,638,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 1,940,302,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 1,907,606,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +290,968,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -32,696,000
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account provides
funding to programs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration that prevent, counter, and respond to global
nuclear threats, according to a revised budget structure for
fiscal year 2016. The Committee's recommendation for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1,907,606,000, $290,968,000 above
fiscal year 2015 and $32,696,000 below the budget request. The
recommended amount includes a rescission of $10,394,000 in
prior-year unobligated balances. As requested, the
recommendation includes funding for Nuclear Counterterrorism
and Incident Response activities that were funded within
Weapons Activities in fiscal year 2015. After accounting for
this programmatic shift, the recommendation is $52,598,000
above the comparative level for these activities in fiscal year
2015.
Continuing U.S. Nonproliferation Activities in Russia.--As
in fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommendation provides no
new funds to enter into contracts and agreements with Russia in
fiscal year 2016.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Funding for the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
is provided across five new programmatic areas: Global Material
Security, Material Management and Minimization,
Nonproliferation and Arms Control, Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation R&D, and Nonproliferation Construction.
Global Material Security.--The Committee recommends
$422,949,000 for Global Material Security, $3,802,000 below the
budget request. The NNSA is directed to report separate funding
for its domestic and international radiological material
programs in its budget request. While the recommendation for
Radiological Security provides funding for domestic and
international activities within one reprogramming control
point, continued support for this flexibility is contingent on
the transparency of these activities in the NNSA's budget
justifications.
Material Management and Minimization.--The Committee
recommends $310,584,000 for Material Management and
Minimization, $1,000,000 below the budget request. The
recommendation does not include $1,000,000 for Russian Surplus
Materials Disposition that is requested within International
Plutonium Disposition. The NNSA should identify additional
funding needed to close out these activities when submitting a
Secretarial waiver for enduring nonproliferation activities in
Russia. The Committee is concerned that the U.S. is subsidizing
the cost of removing materials from high-income nations that do
not need financial assistance to enhance the security of their
nuclear materials. While there may be circumstances where it is
in the national security interest to provide incentives for the
removal of materials from high-income nations, the NNSA must
improve the justification for such actions. The Committee is
also concerned that foreign nuclear materials for which the
U.S. has no direct responsibility are being transported to the
U.S. without consideration of the full costs of management,
storage, and eventual disposition. As requested, the
recommendation includes $21,000,000 for material removal from
high-income nations due to the unique security concerns
associated with these particular materials. However, the NNSA
is directed to offset the costs of removing these materials
from prior-year balances of lower priority activities. The
Committee cautions the NNSA in requesting funding for
additional material removals without better accounting for the
full costs of managing these materials and identifying a
disposal path.
Nonproliferation and Arms Control.--The Committee
recommends $130,203,000 for Nonproliferation and Arms Control,
$3,500,000 above the budget request. Additional funding above
the budget request is provided to expedite processing of export
applications. The current slow process for approving Part 810
specific authorization applications puts U.S. firms at a
competitive disadvantage to nuclear exporters from other
countries, diminishes U.S. influence on nuclear safety,
security, and nonproliferation practices, and ultimately costs
American jobs. Not later than 90 days after the enactment of
this Act, the NNSA shall provide to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report on its Part
810 Process Improvement Program that details its strategy for
driving efficiencies within the U.S. interagency process for
approving Part 810 specific authorizations. The report shall
identify a goal for the timeframe in which a typical Part 810
specific authorization is processed, shall outline the
implementation schedule for the Process Improvement Program,
shall identify a funding plan to successfully implement the
Process Improvement Program, shall include relevant data on the
average timeframes achieved for Part 810 specific
authorizations during each of the past five years, and shall
identify metrics that can be used to determine whether the
program is achieving meaningful progress in reducing specific
authorization processing times.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and
Development.--The Committee recommends $419,333,000 for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development, $25,932,000
above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. The
Committee supports maintaining a vigorous research and
development base at the national laboratories to further U.S.
nonproliferation objectives.
Nonproliferation Construction.--The Committee recommends
$345,000,000 for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
project, the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request.
The recommendation provides sufficient funding to sustain the
current pace of construction on the MOX facility in fiscal year
2016 and includes a provision that prohibits the use of MOX
funding to place the project in cold standby. The Department
has conducted further analysis of the comparative costs of the
MOX and downblending alternatives to dispose of surplus U.S.
plutonium. While the costs of constructing the MOX facility
appear to be conservatively estimated, that analysis does not
provide a full accounting of the lifecycle costs for the
alternative option to downblend and dispose of the material at
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) or another disposal
facility. For instance, the Department's analysis does not
account for the costs of operating and emplacing waste in WIPP
for another twenty years beyond its current closure date of
2030. In addition, the Department estimates that, if
authorized, the Department would need significant funding above
the budget request to cancel the MOX project and pursue the
downblending alternative in fiscal year 2016. Considering the
high near term costs of either option, more accurate
information on the full costs of the downblending option must
be developed before such an alternative should be pursued. The
Department is directed to conduct a comprehensive programmatic
analysis of the full costs of downblending and disposing
surplus U.S. plutonium at WIPP or another disposal facility and
to provide a report on its findings to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not less than 18
months after the enactment of this Act. If the MOX program
should be continued, the Committee encourages exploring options
for cost-sharing with other responsible international partners.
NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM AND INCIDENT RESPONSE
The NNSA's Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response
programs respond to and mitigate nuclear and radiological
incidents worldwide in order to defend the nation from the
threat of nuclear terrorism. These activities were funded
within Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response and
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation within Weapons
Activities in fiscal year 2015. The Committee recommendation
supports the request to align all NNSA funding to prevent,
counter, and respond to nuclear proliferation and terrorism in
one appropriation. The Committee recommends $234,390,000,
$10,357,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget
request.
LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS
The Committee provides $94,617,000 for payments into the
legacy University of California contractor employee defined
benefit pension plans, $8,292,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
the same as the budget request.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
Rescissions.--The Committee rescinds $10,394,000 in
unobligated prior-year balances that the Department reports
will remain unobligated in fiscal year 2015 apportionment
restrictions related to NNSA prior-year pensions funding.
Use of prior-year balances.--The Committee directs the use
of $18,076,000 in prior-year balances to offset the fiscal year
2016 needs, as requested. The Committee further directs the use
of an additional $21,000,000 in prior-year balances to offset
the costs of the removal of nuclear materials from high-income
nations.
Naval Reactors
Appropriation, 2015................................... $1,234,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 1,375,496,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 1,320,394,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +86,394,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -55,102,000
The Naval Reactors (NR) program is responsible for all
aspects of naval nuclear propulsion from technology development
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal.
The program provides for the design, development, testing, and
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and
reactor cores. The Committee's recommendation for Naval
Reactors is $1,320,394,000, $86,394,000 above fiscal year 2015
and $55,102,000 below the budget request. The Committee's
recommendation fully funds development of the OHIO-Replacement
ballistic missile submarine and refueling of the S8G prototype,
which is closely linked to the OHIO-Replacement. The Committee
continues to provide funding separately for these high-priority
activities.
Ohio-Replacement Reactor Systems Development.--The
Committee recommends $186,800,000, $30,700,000 above fiscal
year 2015 and the same as the budget request.
S8G Prototype Refueling.--The Committee recommends
$133,000,000, $6,600,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as
the budget request.
NR Development.--The Committee recommends $414,642,000,
$3,462,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $29,758,000 below the
budget request.
Advanced Test Reactor.--Within the amounts for NR
Development, $71,200,000 is provided for the Advanced Test
Reactor (ATR) at Idaho National Laboratory. Ensuring continued
safe operation of ATR is a high priority for the Committee.
Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear Energy are working
together to identify upgrades that are needed to ensure the
safe and reliable operation of ATR until at least 2050.
However, the Committee is concerned that the period of time
that has passed since these planning activities were first
initiated is resulting in an extended schedule for completion.
Continued delays will only serve to increase costs and risks.
The Committee directs Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear
Energy to expedite resolution of any remaining issues and to
provide an update of progress as soon as possible.
Advanced Fuel Systems.--Naval Reactors is directed to
develop and provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress an outline of a conceptual research and
development program for an advanced fuel system that could use
low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. Successful development of an
LEU advanced fuel system could address several national-
security concerns, including the continued supply of highly
enriched uranium (HEU) dedicated for naval fuel that the
Department of Energy says is sufficient until 2064. Potential
conversion to LEU fuel in future generations of U.S. nuclear
naval vessels could also reduce global risks of nuclear
proliferation and nuclear terrorism by helping promote
worldwide HEU minimization, a longstanding U.S.
nonproliferation policy objective. The report should describe
the goals, timeline, and annual budget requirements, including
fuel fabrication and test irradiation requirements, for
carrying out such a development program.
NR Operations and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$424,452,000, $34,452,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$20,744,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, no
less than $138,670,000 is provided for Research Reactor
Facility Operations and Maintenance.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $118,000,000,
$4,680,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $3,100,000 below the
budget request. No funding is provided to construct a
simulation training facility that is primarily intended to meet
Navy training needs because the training of Navy nuclear
operators is a Navy rather than Department of Energy
responsibility. Further, the Navy has alternative options
available to meet its training needs that do not require new
facility construction at Department of Energy facilities. If
new construction at a Department of Energy site is preferred,
NR is directed to seek out an appropriate investment
arrangement with the Navy that will permit DOE facilities to be
constructed to perform Navy missions on a reimbursable basis.
Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project.--The
Committee recommends $86,000,000, $16,000,000 above fiscal year
2015 and the same as the budget request.
Federal Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, 2015................................... $370,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 402,654,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 388,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +18,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -14,654,000
The Federal Salaries and Expenses account provides
corporate planning and oversight for Defense Programs, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the
NNSA field offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The
Committee recommendation is $388,000,000, $18,000,000 above
fiscal year 2015 and $14,654,000 below the budget request.
Corporate Project Management.--The Committee recommends
$9,863,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,036,000 below
the budget request. The NNSA should expedite establishing
permanent federal capabilities for cost estimating and project
management instead of relying on support service contracts to
conduct its project oversight.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriation, 2015................................... $5,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 5,055,550,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 5,055,550,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +55,550,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Defense Environmental Cleanup account provides funding
for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites
where the nation carried out defense-related nuclear research
and production activities that resulted in radioactive,
hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation,
stabilization, or some other cleanup action. The Committee's
recommendation for Defense Environmental Cleanup is
$5,055,550,000, $55,550,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same
as the budget request. Within the amounts provided, the
Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training
at $10,000,000.
The Committee encourages the Department to move forward
with plans to establish the Manhattan Project National Park as
outlined in Section 3039 of the National Defense Authorization
Act of 2015.
Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $922,711,000 for
the Richland site office, $18,289,000 below fiscal year 2015
and $78,874,000 above the budget request. The Department has
made considerable progress cleaning up the River Corridor and
reducing the overall footprint at Hanford. While the budget
request proposes to reduce funds for Richland, the Committee is
concerned that the Department's strategy represents a change in
the cleanup plans that have not been fully explained to
stakeholders and that delays indefinitely the completion of
some high hazard projects. Not later than 90 days after the
enactment of this Act, the Department shall report to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on its
plans for the Hanford site that clearly delineates goals and
milestones over the next five years and that explains any
deviations from agreements or other commitments previously made
to the state and other stakeholders.
For the Office of River Protection, the Committee
recommends $1,268,000,000, $56,000,000 above fiscal year 2015
and $146,000,000 below the budget request. Within this amount,
$578,000,000 is provided for Tank Farm Activities, $56,000,000
above fiscal year 2015 and $71,000,000 below the budget
request. The recommendation includes $41,000,000 for vapor
implementation activities and $52,000,000 to meet milestones
for single shell tank retrievals and installation of rainwater
barriers. The recommendation defers funding for modifications
needed for direct feed of the Waste Treatment Plant until the
Department has provided more clarity on its multi-year cost and
schedule plans.
Waste Treatment Plant.--The recommendation provides
$690,000,000 for construction of the Waste Treatment Plant
(WTP) within three reprogramming controls for Subprojects A-D,
the Pretreatment Facility, and the Low Activity Waste
Pretreatment System project, a new facility that is part of the
direct feed modifications to the WTP. Though the Department has
made progress in resolving the WTP's design problems through
its proposal for direct feed, the Committee is concerned that
the Department still does not have an overarching programmatic
strategy to deliver the WTP, does not have a project baseline
that is aligned with the contract structure, and has limited
ability to monitor project performance because the contractor
is no longer reporting earned value management system data
against a resource-loaded schedule. The Committee does not
support increasing the overall annual amount of funding for WTP
construction until the Department has provided the Committee
with a cost estimate to begin processing liquid waste and a
clear schedule to accomplish that goal. In addition, the
Department must account for its maintenance and operating costs
and continued design and testing activities that are needed for
the portions of the project that are delayed due to unresolved
safety-related design issues. The Committee supports continued
flat funding for the period of time that the Department needs
to better refine its cost and schedule plans and provide those
details to the Congress.
Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends
$390,783,000, $10,580,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$30,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee is
concerned that the budget request relies on a highly optimistic
schedule for processing waste through the Integrated Waste
Treatment Unit and is inadequate to support full tank waste
processing operations through fiscal year 2016. While the
Committee supports the Department's decision to undertake a
safe and careful approach to starting the facility, timely
startup remains a high priority. The recommendation includes an
additional $30,000,000 above the budget request to maintain
funding for radioactive liquid tank waste disposition slightly
below the fiscal year 2015 level while meeting other cleanup
funding needs at the site.
NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $246,251,000,
$12,367,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $8,625,000 below the
budget request. The recommendation makes use of high prior-year
carryover that is a result of a halt in transuranic waste
operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee
encourages the Department to expeditiously implement its new
contract and federal oversight strategies to prevent further
delays in coming to agreement on a cleanup plan for the
laboratory.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends
$197,953,000, $25,097,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$20,600,000 above the budget request.
U-233 Disposition Program.--The Committee recommends
$35,895,000, $35,895,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $9,000,000
above the budget request. The Committee remains concerned about
the safety and security of legacy materials in Building 3019,
an aging facility in the heart of the science campus. Progress
on dispositioning canisters is stalled and the Department has
failed to provide the Committee-directed report on its five-
year programmatic plans in a timely manner. These multi-year
plans are essential to demonstrating that the Department has
prioritized reducing these risks appropriately. The Department
should expedite building improvements needed to process these
materials as it continues to negotiate plans for direct
disposal.
High-Risk Excess Facilities.--The Committee is concerned
about the status of high-risk excess facilities at the Y-12
National Security Complex. In January 2015, the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) provided a facility
disposition report that was directed by the Committee in fiscal
year 2012 that identified the NNSA's top-10 high risk
facilities. The report indicated that at the top of that list
are three 1940's-era facilities located at the Y-12 National
Security Complex. The NNSA also reported that while NNSA and EM
are working together to monitor the risks, there is no planned
disposition date for the Y-12 facilities. EM has included these
facilities in its Integrated Facilities Disposition Project
(IFDP), but there is no visibility into how the IFDP is being
managed and the project is not being conducted in accordance
with DOE Order 413.3B. Not later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act, the Department shall provide to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
report that details the programmatic and project management
strategy for the IFDP, its multi-year cost and schedule
planning projections, and the options available for mercury
remediation and waste disposal. The recommendation for Oak
Ridge Nuclear Facilities D&D includes $3,000,000 above the
budget request to accomplish these accelerated planning
activities.
Mercury Treatment Facility.--The Committee recommends
$9,400,000 for the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility, the
same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,600,000 above the budget
request. Completion of this facility is necessary before major
decommissioning progress can be made at Y-12 in order to
mitigate the potential for additional mercury releases during
demolition. The project is estimated to cost up to $370,000,000
and reducing funding in fiscal year 2016 would lead to further
delays and higher costs. The Committee expects the Department
to provide an update on its project plans once it awards
critical decision-1.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends
$1,191,543,000, $70,236,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
$16,878,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, an
increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request is provided for
Risk Management Operations to support the disposition of spent
fuel from the High Flux Isotope Reactor.
Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF).--The Committee
recommends $194,000,000, $59,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
the same as the budget request. The SWPF represents the
critical path for meeting the Department's long-term cleanup
commitments at the site and therefore remains the Committee's
highest priority at Savannah River. The Committee is encouraged
by the revision of the performance baseline for the project,
which will provide the Department with the management tools it
needs to monitor project performance. While the Committee does
not endorse nor oppose the particular contracting strategy the
Department pursued in its re-baseline negotiations, the
Committee remains concerned that the Department was
unsuccessful in its efforts to come to an agreement on a
revised contract structure that might have reduced the risk of
further cost growth and schedule slippage, considering the past
problems experienced with keeping the project on track under
the current contract. In the past, the Department has been
reluctant to fully enforce the requirements of its contracts
and has been slow to realize and react to challenges that might
have an impact on project performance. Without a revised
contract structure, the importance of the Department's federal
managers to utilize current authorities and enforce existing
contract requirements becomes more pronounced. The Committee
will continue to closely monitor progress of the project and
hold the Department accountable for delivering the project on
schedule and within budget.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).--The Committee
recommends $285,857,000, $34,143,000 below fiscal year 2015 and
$42,539,000 above the budget request. While the Department has
put together an aggressive plan for resuming waste emplacement
operations at WIPP, the Committee is concerned that base
funding is severely reduced in the budget request. Safely
returning WIPP to full operations is one of the highest
priorities for the Committee in the bill. Inadequately funding
base operations and maintenance, as well as the transuranic
waste operations at the generator sites within the Central
Characterization Project, ultimately undermines the
Department's ability to address the root causes of the two
incidents leading to the shutdown and to meet its transuranic
waste commitments at other sites.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
recommends $14,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and
$510,000 below the budget request. Within this amount,
$2,000,000 is provided for the National Spent Fuel Program at
Idaho National Laboratory.
Defense Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning
Appropriation, 2015................................... $463,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 471,797,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 471,797,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +8,797,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
This account provides for a federal defense contribution
into the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund. The Committee recommendation is $471,797,000, $8,797,000
above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. The
Committee recommendation does not include authorization of a
legislative proposal to reinstate a tax on nuclear utilities.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriation, 2015................................... $754,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 774,425,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 767,570,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +13,570,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -6,855,000
The Other Defense Activities account provides funding for
the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security; the
Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments; the Office of
Legacy Management; Specialized Security Activities; Defense
Related Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and
Appeals. The Committee recommendation for Other Defense
Activities is $767,570,000, $13,570,000 above fiscal year 2015
and $6,855,000 below the budget request.
Environment, Health, Safety and Security.--The Committee
recommends $183,798,000, $2,800,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
the same as the budget request.
Independent Enterprise Assessments.--The Committee
recommends $73,534,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and the
budget request. It is critical to preserve the ability of the
Department to conduct independent assessments of compliance and
performance and that access to and cooperation from all
Departmental programs is provided to the Office of Independent
Enterprise Assessments. The Office of Independent Enterprise
Assessments is directed to continue to provide an annual report
of its oversight activities, findings, and recommendations for
the previous fiscal year.
Graded Security Posture.--Not later than 90 days after the
enactment of this Act, the Department shall provide to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
report that outlines a schedule to update its Graded Security
Posture to meet the latest threats. The Department has not yet
demonstrated it has implemented the organizational reforms that
are needed to provide effective security of special nuclear
materials. In particular, the Committee is awaiting the results
of a directed investigation of the need for structural reforms
for providing security for the National Nuclear Security
Administration sites. Reforming security practices continues to
be a high priority for the Committee.
Specialized Security Activities.--The Committee recommends
$215,000,000, $11,848,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,855,000
below the budget request. Within this amount, $2,000,000 is
provided for innovative dynamic threat assessments at Idaho
National Laboratory.
Legacy Management.--The Office of Legacy Management
provides long-term stewardship following site closure. The
Committee recommends $167,180,000, $4,800,000 below fiscal year
2015 and the same as the budget request. The Committee supports
the Office of Legacy's Managements efforts to undertake
creative reforms to limit the volatility of its liabilities for
contractor employee defined benefit pension plans while
preserving the commitments made to legacy employees. The
Committee supports additional reforms that might further reduce
risks to ongoing programmatic activities at the Department of
Energy.
Defense Related Administrative Support.--The Committee
recommends $122,558,000, $3,722,000 above fiscal year 2015 and
the same as the budget request, to provide administrative
support for programs funded in the atomic energy defense
activities accounts.
Office of Hearings and Appeals.--The Office of Hearings and
Appeals is responsible for all of the Department's adjudicatory
processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends $5,500,000, the
same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Management of the federal power marketing functions was
transferred from the Department of the Interior to the
Department of Energy in the Department of Energy Organization
Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91). These functions include the power
marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Bonneville
Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration,
the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing
functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been
transferred to the Western Area Power Administration.
All four power marketing administrations give preference in
the sale of their power to publicly-owned and cooperatively-
owned utilities. Operations of the Bonneville Power
Administration are financed principally under the authority of
the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-
454). Under this Act, the Bonneville Power Administration is
authorized to use its revenues to finance the costs of its
operations, maintenance, and capital construction, and to sell
bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional
capital program requirements.
Beginning in fiscal year 2011, power revenues from the
Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power
Administrations, which were previously classified as mandatory
offsetting receipts, were reclassified as discretionary
offsetting collections to directly offset annual expenses. The
capital expenses of Southwestern and Western Area Power
Administrations are appropriated annually.
Bonneville Power Administration
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets the power from federal hydropower projects
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-federal generating
facilities in the region, and exchanges and markets surplus
power with Canada and California. Language is included to allow
expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund for
the Shoshone Paiute Trout Hatchery, the Spokane Tribal
Hatchery, and the Snake River Sockeye Weirs.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
Budget estimate, 2016................................. $- - -
Appropriation, 2015................................... - - -
Recommended, 2016..................................... - - -
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) markets
hydroelectric power produced at 22 Army Corps of Engineers
Projects in 11 states in the southeast. Southeastern does not
own or operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to
``wheel'' its power using the existing transmission facilities
of area utilities.
The total program level for SEPA in fiscal year 2016 is
$90,500,000, with $83,600,000 for purchase power and wheeling
and $6,900,000 for program direction. The purchase power and
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $66,500,000,
and annual expenses will be offset by collections of
$6,900,000. Additionally, SEPA has identified $17,100,000 in
alternative financing for purchase power and wheeling. The net
appropriation, therefore, is $0 in the recommendation and the
budget request.
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2015................................... $11,400,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 11,400,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 11,400,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) markets
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Texas. SWPA operates and maintains 1,380 miles of
transmission lines, along with supporting substations and
communications sites.
The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power
Administration is a net appropriation of $11,400,000, the same
as the budget request. The total program level for Southwestern
in fiscal year 2016 is $136,223,000, including $19,279,000 for
operation and maintenance expenses, $73,000,000 for purchase
power and wheeling, $31,932,000 for program direction, and
$12,012,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total
$98,961,000, including $6,023,000 for operations and
maintenance, $63,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and
$29,938,000 for program direction. Southwestern estimates it
will secure alternative financing from customers in the amount
of $25,862,000.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
Appropriation, 2015................................... $93,372,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 93,372,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 93,372,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles
long. Western provides electricity to 15 western states over a
service area of 1.3 million square miles.
The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power
Administration is a net appropriation of $93,372,000, the same
as the budget request. The total program level for Western in
fiscal year 2016 is recommended at $941,600,000, which includes
$58,374,000 for construction and rehabilitation, $80,901,000
for system operation and maintenance, $565,927,000 for purchase
power and wheeling, and $236,398,000 for program direction.
Offsetting collections include $567,155,000 for purchase power
and wheeling and annual expenses, and the use of $7,344,000 of
offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as
authorized in P.L. 98-381). Western Area estimates it will
secure alternative financing from customers in the amount of
$273,729,000.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
Appropriation, 2015................................... $228,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 228,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 228,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and
Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these
two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area
Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of
operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is
administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use
by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission.
The budget request includes a proposal for authority to
accept contributed funds in fiscal year 2016 for use in
fulfilling duties associated with the Falcon and Amistad Dams.
This authority would be equivalent to the authority used
throughout the Western Area Power Administration to secure
alternative financing. The Committee includes this proposal.
The Committee recommendation is a net appropriation of
$228,000, the same as the budget request. The total program
level is $4,950,000, with $4,262,000 of offsetting collections
applied toward annual expenses and $460,000 of alternative
financing.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2015................................... $304,389,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 319,800,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 319,800,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +15,411,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2015................................... $-304,389,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. -319,800,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... -319,800,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... -15,411,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $319,800,000, the same as the
budget request. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate
equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation
of $0.
The Committee is aware that concerns remain about the
degree of consideration given by FERC to the rights and
concerns of private property owners during the process for
developing, reviewing, and approving shoreline management
plans. The Committee reiterates its support for the expeditious
development and implementation of innovative and mutually
agreeable solutions to resolve conflicts among project purposes
and private property at specific locations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee's detailed funding recommendations for
programs in Title III are contained in the following table.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)
The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of
funds provided in this title to initiate requests for
proposals, other solicitations or arrangements for new programs
or activities that have not yet been approved and funded by the
Congress; requires notification or a report for certain funding
actions; prohibits funds to be used for certain multi-year
``Energy Programs'' activities without notification; and
prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds provided in
this title through a reprogramming of funds except in certain
circumstances.
The bill continues a provision that permits the transfer
and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with
appropriation accounts established in this bill.
The bill continues a provision that authorizes intelligence
activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section
504 of the National Security Act of 1947.
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of
funds in this title for capital construction of high hazard
nuclear facilities, unless certain independent oversight is
conducted, to account for a change in the Department of
Energy's organizational structure.
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of
funds provided in this title to approve critical decision-2 or
critical decision-3 for certain construction projects, unless a
separate independent cost estimate has been developed for that
critical decision.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the Office of
Science from entering into multi-year funding agreements with a
value of less than $1,000,000.
The bill continues a provision restricting certain
activities in the Russian Federation.
The bill modifies a provision regarding management of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The bill includes a provision that permits the
reprogramming of funds.
The bill includes a provision rescinding unobligated
balances.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2015................................... $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 95,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 95,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional
economic development agency established in 1965 by the
Appalachian Regional Development Act (Public Law 89-4). It is
comprised of the governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a
federal co-chair appointed by the President. Each year, the ARC
provides funding for several hundred projects in the
Appalachian Region in areas such as business development,
education and job training, telecommunications, infrastructure,
community development, housing, and transportation.
The Committee recommendation for the ARC is $95,000,000,
$5,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget
request.
To diversify and enhance regional business development,
$10,000,000 is provided to continue the program of high-speed
broadband deployment in distressed counties within the Central
Appalachian region that have been most negatively impacted by
the downturn in the coal industry. This funding shall be in
addition to the 30 percent directed to distressed counties.
Within available funds, the Committee directs $15,000,000
for activities in support of the POWER+ Plan.
The ARC targets 50 percent of its funds to distressed
counties or distressed areas in the Appalachian region. The
Committee continues to believe this should be the primary focus
of the ARC.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Appropriation, 2015................................... $28,500,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 29,150,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 29,900,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +1,400,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +750,000
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was
created by the fiscal year 1989 National Defense Authorization
Act. The Board, composed of five members appointed by the
President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary
of Energy regarding public health and safety issues at the
Department's defense nuclear facilities. The DNFSB is
responsible for reviewing and evaluating the content and
implementation of the standards relating to the design,
construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department
of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. The Committee expects
the DNFSB to continue to play a significant role in
scrutinizing the Department's safety and security activities,
including the reform initiatives underway in the Department
that may impact projects under its jurisdiction. The Committee
recommendation for fiscal year 2016 is $29,900,000, $1,400,000
above fiscal year 2015 and $750,000 above the budget request.
In addition to its statutory responsibilities for providing
independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of
Energy, the DNFSB plays a vital role in ensuring that issues of
public health and safety at the Department of Energy's defense
nuclear facilities are disclosed to the Congress and the
public. The DNFSB remains a small organization with only
limited resources to investigate all potential matters of
concern. In recent years, the DNFSB has ramped up work for
reviewing new nuclear facility construction. The Committee
commends the DNFSB for performing its reviews early on in the
design process, a practice that will reduce costs.
The recommendation includes funding above the budget
request so that the DNFSB may conduct a comprehensive
evaluation of the radioactive liquid waste tank and processing
infrastructure and the tank maintenance and operating programs
at Hanford and Savannah River to identify any safety issues
that must be resolved to support extended operations. The
Committee is concerned about the status of those systems in
light of the indefinite delays in completing construction of
the Waste Treatment Plant at Hanford and the new missions under
consideration at Savannah River that will involve processing
nuclear materials for an extended time. The Department of
Energy has provided few details on its plans and strategies to
safely operate those systems beyond the timeframes previously
planned. The DNFSB is directed to provide a report on its
findings and recommendations to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 360
days after the enactment of this Act.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriation, 2015................................... $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 14,936,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 12,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -2,936,000
The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state
partnership established by the Delta Regional Authority Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-554) that serves a 252-county/parish area
in an eight-state region near the mouth of the Mississippi
River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each
participating state, the DRA is designed to remedy severe and
chronic economic distress by stimulating economic development
and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on
the region's economy. The DRA seeks to help local communities
leverage other federal and state programs, which are focused on
basic infrastructure development, transportation improvements,
business development, and job training services. Under federal
law, at least 75 percent of appropriated funds must be invested
in distressed counties and parishes, with 50 percent of the
funds earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure
improvements.
For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends $12,000,000,
the same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,936,000 below the budget
request.
Denali Commission
Appropriation, 2015................................... $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 10,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 10,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Denali Commission is a regional development agency
established by the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-277) to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, health
services, and economic support throughout Alaska. To ensure
that local communities have a stake in Commission-funded
projects, local cost-share requirements for construction and
equipment have been established for both distressed and non-
distressed communities.
For the cost of the Commission's operations in fiscal year
2016, the Committee recommends $10,000,000, the same as fiscal
year 2015 and the budget request.
Northern Border Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2015................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 5,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 3,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... -2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -2,000,000
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-234) authorized the establishment of the Northern Border
Regional Commission (NBRC) as a federal-state partnership
intended to address the economic development needs of
distressed portions of the four-state region of Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. The Committee has continued
legislative language addressing the Commission's administrative
expenses.
The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to support the
Commission's activities in fiscal year 2016, $2,000,000 below
fiscal year 2015 and the budget request.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2015................................... $250,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. - - -
Recommended, 2016..................................... 250,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... - - -
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +250,000
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-234) authorized the establishment of the Southeast Crescent
Regional Commission as a federal-state partnership intended to
address the economic development needs of distressed portions
of the seven-state region in the southeastern United States not
already served by a regional development agency.
The Committee recommends $250,000 for operations of the
commission in fiscal year 2016, the same as fiscal year 2015
and $250,000 above the budget request.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2015................................... $1,003,233,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 1,020,119,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 1,003,233,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... 0
Budget estimate, 2016............................. -16,886,000
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2015................................... $-885,375,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. -899,971,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... -862,274,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +23,101,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +37,697,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2015................................... $117,858,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 120,148,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 140,959,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +23,101,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. +20,811,000
The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2016 is
$1,003,233,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and $16,886,000
below the budget request. The total amount of budget authority
is offset by estimated revenues of $862,274,000. Including
revenues, the net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is $140,959,000.
The recommendation does not support the increase for
salaries and expenses proposed in the budget request. The
Committee directed the use of anticipated carryover balances in
fiscal year 2015 as the first step in returning the NRC to a
budget that is more aligned with current regulatory and
licensing needs. The fiscal year 2016 recommendation
accelerates the ``right-sizing'' proposed by the Project AIM
report and provides $25,000,000 for the adjudication of the
Yucca Mountain license application. The Committee directs that
NRC apply any reduction in available resources to corporate
support.
Within available funds, not more than $9,500,000 is
included for salaries, travel, and other support costs for the
Office of the Commission. These salaries and expenses shall
include only salaries and benefit and travel costs, and are not
to include general and administrative and infrastructure costs.
The Committee directs that these funds are to be jointly
managed by the Commissioners, and the bill requires that the
use and expenditure of these salaries and expenses shall only
be by a majority vote of the Commission. The NRC shall continue
to include a breakout and explanation of the Commission
salaries and expenses in its annual budget requests. If the
Commission wishes to change the composition of the funds
requested for its salaries and expenses in future years, it
must do so in an annual budget request or through a
reprogramming.
The recommendation directs $25,000,000 to continue
adjudication of the Yucca Mountain license application. The
Committee reiterates that the Administration's refusal to move
forward with the Yucca Mountain license application ignores
current law and does not advance the Nation's need for a
permanent repository. The recommendation continues language
prohibiting the Chairman of the NRC from terminating any
program, project, or activity without the approval of a
majority of the Commissioners. The NRC is directed to report to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress,
not later than January 5, 2017, on the plan to complete the
license application and additional funding needs as necessary.
In addition, the recommendation requires the NRC to notify and
report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress on the use of emergency functions.
NRC Right-Sizing.--The Committee is aware that the
Commission is in the process of reviewing the recommendations
of the both the Project AIM report and the independent review
of corporate support directed by Congress. The Committee urges
the Commission to seek the input of key stakeholders in order
to ensure that the NRC is structured in a way that ensures
safety, is well-defined, reasonable, and able to adapt to
changing realities, particularly the demands of emerging
technologies and license application. The Committee directs the
Commission to accelerate the schedule for the recommendations
addressing planning and budgeting, to include any actions
proposed to reduce the cost of corporate support. The NRC will
report quarterly in fiscal year 2016 to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on all approved
recommendations and the implementation actions undertaken.
Rulemaking.--The Committee directs the Commission to
reestablish the pre-2006 rulemaking process. The Commission's
decision to streamline the rulemaking process in fiscal year
2006 advances rulemaking farther than is appropriate prior to
obtaining a decision from the Commission. The lack of early
Commission engagement causes unnecessary expenditure of
resources and limits the Commission's ability to prioritize
rulemaking activities, identify the cumulative effect of
regulations, and evaluate the impact on licensees. In
particular, the Commission should not waive the development and
submission of rulemaking plans, the review by the Committee to
Review Generic Requirements, and the review by the Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Additionally, the Commission
should not delegate Commission rulemaking responsibilities to
NRC staff. The Committee directs the NRC to report on the
actions taken to restore rulemaking discipline by January 5,
2016. The Committee further directs the NRC to list all
rulemaking activities planned, to include their priority and
schedule, in the annual budget request and the semi-annual
report to Congress on licensing and regulatory activities.
Budget Justifications.--The Committee directs that future
budget justifications provide the following: previous fiscal
year data based on the enacted level for that fiscal year not
the level proposed in the previous year's budget request;
carryover balances spent in previous fiscal years and estimates
for the current year.
Integrated University Program.--From within available
funds, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to provide
financial support for the university education programs
relevant to the NRC mission, as the Commission continues to be
reliant on a pipeline of highly trained nuclear engineers and
scientists and benefits substantially from this university
program. Not less than $5,000,000 of this amount is to be used
for grants to support research projects that do not align with
programmatic missions, but are critical to maintaining the
discipline of nuclear science and engineering.
Reporting Requirements.--The Committee directs the
Commission to continue to provide semi-annual reports on the
status of its licensing and other regulatory activities.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2015................................... $12,071,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 12,136,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 12,136,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +65,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2015................................... $-10,099,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. -10,060,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... -10,060,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +39,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2015................................... $1,972,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 2,076,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 2,076,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +104,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Committee recommends $12,136,000, $65,000 above fiscal
year 2015 and the same as the budget request. Given the formula
for fee recovery, the revenue estimate is $10,060,000,
resulting in a net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Inspector General of $2,076,000.
The Committee has included $958,000 within this
appropriation for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
for the Board to procure Inspector General services from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriation, 2015................................... $3,400,000
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 3,600,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 3,600,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +200,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) was
established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Committee expects the NWTRB to continue its active engagement
with the Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on
issues involving nuclear waste disposal.
The Committee recommends $3,600,000 for the NWTRB.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects
Appropriation, 2015................................... $- - -
Budget estimate, 2016................................. 1,000,000
Recommended, 2016..................................... 1,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2015............................... +1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2016............................. - - -
The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent
agency in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant
to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
324). The Federal Coordinator is responsible for coordinating
local, federal, and international activities for a natural gas
transportation project, including facilitating the permitting
process, as well as joint surveillance and monitoring of
construction with the State of Alaska.
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects, $1,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the
budget request.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
The bill continues a provision requiring the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to fully comply with Congressional
requests for information.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of
funds provided in this Act to, in any way, directly or
indirectly influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress, other than
to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section
1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
The bill continues a provision consolidating the transfer
authorities into and out of accounts funded by this Act. No
additional transfer authority is implied or conveyed by this
provision. For the purposes of this provision, the term
``transfer'' shall mean the shifting of all or part of the
budget authority in one account to another. In addition to
transfers provided in this Act or other appropriation Acts, and
existing authorities, such as the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535),
by which one part of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another part, the Act allows transfers
using Section 4705 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2745). The first semiannual report required by subsection (c)
shall be submitted not later than six months after the
enactment of this Act.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in
contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11,1994,
regarding environmental justice.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in this
Act from being used to close the Yucca Mountain license
application process or for actions that would remove the
possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the
future.
The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of
funds to further implementation of components of the National
Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order 13547.
The bill includes a provision setting at $0 the amount that
the proposed new budget authority in this recommendation
exceeds the allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations
under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
Under section 104, ``General Provisions, Corps of
Engineers--Civil'', $4,700,000 under the heading ``Operation
and Maintenance'' may be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife
Service to mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps projects.
TITLE II--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Under ``Water and Related Resources'', $22,000 is available
for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and
$5,899,000 is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado
River Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary
may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall
appropriation under the heading.
Under ``California Bay Delta Restoration'', such sums as
may be necessary to carry out authorized purposes may be
transferred to appropriate accounts of other participating
federal agencies.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Under section 302, ``General Provisions--Department of
Energy'', unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided
for activities in this Act may be transferred to appropriation
accounts for such activities established pursuant to this
title. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the
applicable established accounts and thereafter may be accounted
for as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.
Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressionally Directed Spending Items
Neither the bill nor the report contains any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law.
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and
specifications of projects prior to construction.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Construction, stating that funds can be used for the
construction of river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and
related projects authorized by law, and for detailed studies
and plans and specifications of such projects.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Mississippi River and Tributaries, permitting the use of funds
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers,
Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for:
the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, and related projects authorized by law; providing
security for infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps,
including administrative buildings and laboratories;
maintaining authorized harbor channels provided by a State,
municipality, or other public agency that serve essential
navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and charting
northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing
and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to
navigation.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds
from a special account for resource protection, research,
interpretation, and maintenance activities at outdoor
recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost
of operation and maintenance of dredged material disposal
facilities for which fees have been collected.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the
total amount of funds provided for each of the programs,
projects, or activities funded under the Operation and
Maintenance heading shall not be allocated to a field operating
activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and
permitting the use of these funds for emergency activities as
determined by the Chief of Engineers to be necessary and
appropriate.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support
Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United
States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, providing that funds are available for official
reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this
Act for the activities funded in Expenses.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency
appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other
activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural
disaster.
Language has been included to provide for funding for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the
funds may be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the execution of
any contract for a program, project or activity which commits
funds in excess of the amount appropriated (to include funds
reprogrammed under section 101) that remain unobligated.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 103, providing for transfer
authority to the Fish and Wildlife Service for mitigation for
lost fisheries.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 104, prohibiting certain actions
related to the definition of fill material or discharge of fill
material for purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 105, prohibiting certain actions
related to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 106, prohibiting requirement of a
permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act for certain activities.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 107, allowing the possession of
firearms at water resources development projects under certain
circumstances.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 108, regarding certain dredged
material disposal activities.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, providing that funds are available
for fulfilling federal responsibilities to Native Americans and
for grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local
governments and Indian tribes.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, allowing fund transfers within the
overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund
and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing
that such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado
River Dam Fund; and, transfers may be increased or decreased
within the overall appropriation.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, providing for funds to be derived
from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account
established by 16 U.S.C. 6806; that funds contributed under 43
U.S.C. 395 by non-federal entities shall be available for
expenditure; and that funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a are
to be credited to the Water and Related Resources account and
available for expenditure.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources, providing that funds may be used
for high priority projects carried out by the Youth
Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, directing the Bureau
of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of
additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by
section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, providing that none of
the funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or
lease of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already
committed to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by
consent or decree.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
California Bay-Delta Restoration, permitting the transfer of
funds to appropriate accounts of other participating federal
agencies to carry out authorized programs; allowing funds made
available under this heading to be used for the federal share
of the costs of the CALFED Program management; and requiring
that CALFED implementation be carried out with clear
performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the program.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Policy and Administration, providing that funds are to be
derived from the Reclamation Fund and prohibiting the use of
any other appropriation in the Act for activities budgeted as
policy and administration expenses.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase of motor
vehicles for replacement.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
Department of the Interior, section 201, providing that none of
the funds may be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds except in certain
circumstances.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
Department of the Interior, section 202, regarding the San Luis
Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
Department of the Interior, section 203, regarding completion
of certain feasibility studies.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy for the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment.
Language has been included under Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment.
Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and
Development for the acquisition of interest, including
defeasible and equitable interest in any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and
for conducting inquires, technological investigations, and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social and
environmental cost under 30 U.S.C. 3, 1602 and 1603.
Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and
Oil Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances.
Language has been included under Science providing for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal for
the acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion.
Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section
1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as offsetting
collections to this account and making fees collected under
section 1702(h) in excess of the appropriated amount
unavailable for expenditure until appropriated.
Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program prohibiting the subordination of certain
interests.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and
for official reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the
Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue
increases of the same or greater amounts.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the
Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations.
The appropriations language for this account reflects the total
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are
received.
Language has been included under Weapons Activities for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation for the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other incidental
expenses.
Language has been included under Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation restricting the use of funds provided for a
specific project.
Language has been included under Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation rescinding funds that were not designated by
the Congress as emergency funding.
Language has been included under Naval Reactors for the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment, facilities, and facility expansion.
Language has been included under Federal Salaries and
Expenses providing funding for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Defense Environmental
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor
vehicles.
Language has been included under Other Defense Activities
for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and
capital equipment.
Language has been included under Bonneville Power
Administration Fund providing funding for official reception
and representation expenses; approving funds for certain
programs; and precluding any new direct loan obligations.
Language has been included under Southeastern Power
Administration providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Southeastern Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302
and 16 U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power
and related services shall be credited to the account as
discretionary offsetting collections and remain available until
expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of
the Southeastern Power Administration; amounts collected to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited
to the account as offsetting collections and remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power
and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power
Administration providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302
and 16 U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power
and related services shall be credited to the account as
discretionary offsetting collections and remain available until
expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of
the Southwestern Power Administration; amounts collected to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited
to the account as offsetting collections and remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power
and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration, providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,
16 U.S.C. 825s, and 43 U.S.C. 392a, amounts collected from the
sale of power and related services shall be credited to the
account as discretionary offsetting collections and remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the
annual expenses of the Western Area Power Administration;
amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling
expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting
collections and remain available until expended for the sole
purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that, notwithstanding
68 Stat. 255 and 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected from the
sale of power and related services shall be credited to the
account as discretionary offsetting collections and remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the
annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities of those dams
and associated Western Area Power Administration activities.
Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that the Western Area
Power Administration may accept a limited amount of
contributions from the United States power customers of the
Falcon and Amistad Dams for use by the Commissioner of the
United States Section of the International Boundary and Water
Commission for operating and maintenance of hydroelectric
facilities.
Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to
provide official reception and representation expenses, and to
permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the
appropriation as revenues are received.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 301, prohibiting the use of funds
to prepare or initiate requests for proposals or other
solicitations or arrangements for programs that have not yet
been fully funded by the Congress; requiring notification and
reporting requirements for certain funding awards; limiting the
use of multi-year funding mechanisms; and providing that none
of the funds may be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds except in certain
circumstances.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 302, providing that unexpended
balances of prior appropriations may be transferred and merged
with new appropriation accounts established in this Act.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 303, providing that funds for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized for purposes of section 504 of the National Security
Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2016 until enactment of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 304, prohibiting the use of funds
for capital construction of high hazard nuclear facilities
unless certain independent oversight is conducted.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 305, prohibiting the use of funds
to approve critical decision-2 or critical decision-3 for
certain construction projects, unless a separate independent
cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 306, requiring the Office of
Science to fund up-front funding arrangements for less than
$1,000,000.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 307, prohibiting nonproliferation
activities in the Russian Federation until certain reporting
requirements are met.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 308, prohibiting funds for certain
activities related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without
prior notification to the Congress and limiting the authority
of the Secretary of Energy to establish regional petroleum
product reserves.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 310, rescinding certain funds that
were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Language has been included under Appalachian Regional
Commission providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and
allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by subtitle IV
of title 40, United States Code, without regard to section
14704.
Language has been included under Delta Regional Authority
allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act without regard to section 382C(b)(2),
382F(d), 382M and 382N of said Act.
Language has been included under Denali Commission allowing
the expenditure of funds notwithstanding section 306(g) of the
Denali Commission Act of 1998, and providing for cost-share
requirements for Commission-funded construction projects in
distressed and non-distressed communities, as defined by
section 307 of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C,
Title III, Public Law 105-277), and an amount not to exceed 50
percent for non-distressed communities.
Language has been included under Northern Border Regional
Commission for expenditure as authorized by subtitle V of title
40, United States Code, without regard to section 15751(b).
Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for salaries
and other support costs for the Office of the Commission, to be
controlled by majority vote of the Commission.
Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for official
representation expenses and permits the use of revenues from
licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for
salaries and expenses to reduce the appropriation as revenues
are received. Funding is provided to support university
research and development, and for a Nuclear Science and
Engineering Grant Program.
Language has been included under Office of Inspector
General that provides for the use of revenues from licensing
fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and
expenses, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United
States Code, to reduce the appropriation as revenues are
received.
Language has been included under Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects
making funds received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law
110-140 in excess of the amount specified unavailable for
obligation until appropriated.
Language has been included under Independent Agencies,
General Provisions, section 401, requiring the NRC to comply
with certain procedures when responding to Congressional
requests for information.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 501, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to
influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 502, prohibiting the transfer of funds except pursuant
to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in this
or any other appropriations Act, or certain other authorities,
and requiring a report.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 503, prohibiting funds in contravention of Executive
Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental
justice.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 504, prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to
close the Yucca Mountain license application process, or for
actions that would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain
might be an option in the future.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 505, prohibiting the use of funds to further
implementation of components of the National Ocean Policy
developed under Executive Order 13547.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 506, setting at $0 the amount that the proposed new
budget authority exceeds the allocation made by the Committee
on Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Program Duplication
No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Directed Rule Making
The bill does not direct any rule making.
Compliance with Rule XIII, CL. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the
accompanying bill does not propose to repeal or amend a statute
or part thereof.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized:
Rescissions
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
bill:
Department or Activity Amount
Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy..16,677,000
Department of Energy: Science................................. 4,717,000
Department of Energy: Nuclear Energy.......................... 1,665,000
Department of Energy: Fossil Energy Research and Development..12,064,000
Department of Energy: Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability............................................... 900,000
Department of Energy: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........10,394,000
Department of Energy: Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation
and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration........ 4,832,000
Comparison With the Budget Resolution
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares
the levels of new budget authority provided in the bill with
the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget
Act.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) Allocation This Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory........................... n.a. n.a. 0 \1\0
Discretionary....................... 35,403 36,186 35,403 36,182
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Five-Year Outlay Projections
Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the following table contains five-year
projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office of
outlays associated with the budget authority provided in the
accompanying bill:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projection of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2016............................................. \1\20,605
2017............................................. 10,115
2018............................................. 3,461
2019............................................. 770
2020 and future years............................ 395
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Assistance to State and Local Governments
Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State
and local governments is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority........................................ 108
Outlays................................................. \1\22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF NITA LOWEY AND MARCY KAPTUR
The President has requested a robust increase for this bill
in Fiscal Year 2016, calling on Congress to provide the
critical investments necessary to accelerate and sustain
economic growth. His overall budget calls for investments in
research, education, training, and infrastructure--all vitally
important and all interconnected.
The President has also called for the end of the mindless
austerity of sequestration, urging this Congress to replace it
with more targeted spending cuts, program integrity measures,
and the closure of some outdated tax loopholes. The effects of
sequestration were immense, and are still being felt. Critical
training was postponed; investments were put-off; and research
abruptly halted. It was a worst-case scenario that never should
have happened and absolutely should never be repeated.
Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
differences with the President on how we get there, but the art
of compromise must be achieved again. Even the Republican
Budget Resolution acknowledges the need for relief from
sequestration, though it does so by using creative accounting
and merely aspirational language.
While the Murray-Ryan plan was not perfect, another similar
budget deal is essential for FY16 and beyond. Without such an
agreement this year, our appropriations process is deeply
imperiled. The sequester-level caps also would put
discretionary funding at its lowest level, adjusted for
inflation, since 2006. We must again act to ensure reasonable
allocations for the important programs and investments funded
through the appropriations process.
We commend Chairman Rogers and Chairman Simpson for their
efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill
funds critical water resource projects, supports science
activities necessary for American competitiveness, and
contributes to our national defense through vital weapons,
naval reactor research, and nonproliferation funding, all
priorities that unite rather than divide us. Chairman Simpson
has worked hard to incorporate the interests of Members from
both parties. As a result, the bill is largely a reflection of
priorities from both sides of the aisle.
The subcommittee's allocation is $35,403,000,000, a
decrease of $633,063,000 from the Administration's budget
request and $1,201,000,000 above the 2015 level. The defense
allocation is $1,040,000,000 above 2015, while the non-defense
allocation is $161,000,000 above 2015. Within the constraints
placed on the committee by the overall budget number, the
allocation reflects a microcosm of the larger budget question
on the appropriate balance between defense and non-defense
activities.
We commend the Chairman for increasing Corps of Engineers
funding by $864,750,000 above the President's inadequate
request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will continue. The
bill also provides approximately $1,178,000,000 for projects
funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, approximately
$73,000,000 above 2015. This funding will allow preventive and
proactive investments necessary for the economy and the safety
of American citizens. As we are reminded often by increasingly
common weather events, we must begin adapting to changing
conditions in the natural environment. The funding will also
allow investments in the nation's ports and waterways, which
are critical to ensuring that American made goods can move to
market, both domestically and abroad. We firmly believe that
our underinvestment in infrastructure continues to hamper
economic gains and prolongs the current employment crisis.
The Corps of Engineers currently has a backlog of
authorized projects in excess of $60,000,000,000, without
including the deauthorization of $18,000,000,000 in the recent
Water Resource Reform and Development Act. Limiting the figure
to those projects currently budgeted, the balance to complete
these ongoing projects is more than $20,000,000,000. While this
bill ensures increased investment beyond that included in the
budget request, we should be doing even more to build
infrastructure and create jobs, not less. Federal support of
water resource projects creates construction jobs and indirect
economic benefits that encourage local businesses and
individuals to embrace risk and make critical investments in
their communities. The bill does not include funding for new
projects. We must start investing in projects that meet
tomorrow's needs, not yesterday's.
The Science and ARPA-E accounts, critical to the
competitiveness of our nation, are $29,000,000 above and equal
to the level of funding provided in 2015 respectively. With a
return on investment of 20 to 67 percent, publicly funded
research grows our economy and helps the United States maintain
its position as the global leader in innovation. If we truly
wish to achieve energy independence and tackle the challenges
posed by climate change, the federal government must continue
to prioritize investments in cutting edge research at our
national laboratories and universities along with supporting
advancements in high-potential, high-impact energy technologies
that are too early for private-sector investment.
With regard to the applied energy programs at the
Department of Energy, investments in energy technology programs
are once again skewed too heavily toward fossil fuels. We must
provide for critical research and development for the nuclear
and fossil energy sectors that currently provide the bulk of
our current electricity generation, but continued and sustained
research and development programs in renewable energy are
necessary and appropriate. Renewable energy has achieved cost
competitiveness in some areas, yet further investment can drive
down the costs of existing technology and provide breakthroughs
in others. Investment in portfolio diversity remains necessary
for the long term, particularly given the rapidly shifting
energy outlook. The dramatic production increases in U.S.
natural gas were enabled, in part, by technology developed by
the Department of Energy. This expansion in production has
resulted in a transformation of the nation's energy exports
impossible to foresee when the actual research and development
investments were made in horizontal drilling technology. The
United States can leverage its strength--innovation--to restore
the United States to a position of global leadership in clean
energy. This effort is a critical national priority, with
implications for our economic competitiveness, national
security, and environmental legacy.
Our nation's chief strategic vulnerability is its
dependence on foreign energy imports and our lack of energy
independence. The United States has spent $2,300,000,000,000
importing foreign petroleum since 2003.
This represents thousands of dollars out of the pockets of
every hard-working American spent, not in much-needed American
job creation, but overseas, assisting our competitors in
developing their economies and their energy futures. Our
republic will not compete in the 21st Century and beyond if we
further reduce investments in energy technology and innovation
arena and cede the energy future to other countries.
Nonproliferation programs are our first line of defense and
the most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent goal of
securing and reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade
material. The bill includes $1,918,000,000 for these critical
programs, approximately $53,000,000 above 2015 after accounting
for the movement of the counterterrorism and incident response
program from weapons. The bill correctly prioritizes this
funding, particularly in light of the recent suspension of
nonproliferation work within Russia and an increase in
irresponsible states and transnational actors seeking to harm.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has
been plagued by breathtaking cost overruns and schedule delays,
and the Chairman continues the strong oversight of the NNSA.
While we understand the need to modernize a complex built
substantially in the 1950's, we continue to question whether
the organization has the necessary tools and processes to
continue to manage large increases to these activities year
after year.
We are concerned that the funding the bill includes for
Environmental Management (EM) activities is insufficient to
meet the federal government's legal obligations to clean up its
defense nuclear waste. This program is critical to addressing
the environmental legacies of the Cold War and the Manhattan
Project. Given that EM's portfolio is one of the nation's
largest environmental and financial liabilities, we have the
responsibility to address the waste and contamination in the
affected communities in a timely and competent manner. While
this was driven by a low defense allocation and budget request,
the bill includes insufficient funding to meet commitments to
the states and localities who provided so much when called
upon.
While the funding levels of the bill would be a basis for
negotiation, the inclusion of controversial riders is an
unnecessary diversion from our primary responsibility--ensuring
that taxpayer funds are invested wisely in Federal programs
which will contribute to the economic vitality of our Nation.
We should not have to remind our Majority colleagues that
similar provisions have imperiled passage of this bill in the
past. This Administration has already been on record with veto
threats over nearly identical language.
Most concerning is the inclusion of four water riders
which, taken together, risk protection of the world's most
precious resource: water. The first Clean Water Act provision
prevents the Corps of Engineers from taking steps to clarify
which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, and keeps in
place a widely-acknowledged state of confusion about the scope
of the law's pollution control programs. The second prevents
the Corps of Engineers from using funds to ``develop, adopt,
implement, administer, or enforce any change'' to regulations
pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill material'' or
``discharge of fill material'' under the Clean Water Act. This
rider would lock in industry loopholes, leaving many of our
nation's waterways vulnerable to harmful pollution. Finally,
the bill includes provisions regarding agricultural exem ptions
to the Clean Water Act and a prohibition of activities related
to the National Ocean Policy. Including these provisions is a
disappointment and does a disservice in our work, particularly
given the water challenges facing many parts of our country.
The inclusion of the rider allowing guns to be carried on
all Corps of Engineers lands injects into the bill an
unnecessarily partisan topic that is unwarranted. We disagree
with the notion that reasonable limits on where guns can be
carried are an infringement upon the Second Amendment. We see
no need to contribute to an environment where guns are
commonplace in recreational areas where families are trying to
escape the pressures of everyday life.
In spite of these concerns, we would like to reiterate our
appreciation for the Chairman's work with us on many issues,
ensuring the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
continues its tradition of bipartisanship--the Subcommittee has
operated collaboratively and effectively for many years and,
within the constraints facing the bill, it addresses many of
the interests we have expressed. Under the current Republican
Budget Resolution, the Energy and Water bill's allocation comes
at the expense of critical investments in other Subcommittees.
It is our firm hope that the Committee will be provided a
sensible overall budget level which will provide a path forward
for all of the FY16 Appropriations bills. We look forward to
the day when allocations across all Subcommittees are returned
to acceptable levels and to working with the Chairman and the
members of this Committee to advance the process.
Nita Lowey.
Marcy Kaptur.