[House Report 112-118]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 112-118
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012
_______
June 24, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Frelinghuysen, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2354]
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, 2012, 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
12
Investigations............................. 2
19
Construction............................... 3
24
Mississippi River and Tributaries.......... 5
32
Operation and Maintenance.................. 5
35
Regulatory Program......................... 7
58
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program................................ 7
58
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies...... 8
59
Expenses................................... 8
59
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works).....................
59
Administrative Provision................... 9
60
General Provisions................................. 9
60
II. Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project............................... 14
61
Central Utah Project Completion Account.... 14
61
Bureau of Reclamation:
Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Overview...........
62
Water and Related Resources................ 15
63
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.... 16
69
California Bay-Delta Restoration........... 17
70
Policy and Administration.................. 18
70
Administrative Provision................... 18
71
General Provisions................................. 19
71
III. Department of Energy:
Energy Programs.................................... 22
85
Introduction.......................................
72
Committee Recommendations..........................
84
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy..... 22
85
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 22
94
Nuclear Energy............................. 23
95
Fossil Energy Research and Development..... 23
100
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves..... 24
102
Strategic Petroleum Reserve................ 24
103
SPR Petroleum Account...................... 24
103
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve......... 25
104
Energy Information Administration.......... 26
105
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.......... 26
105
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund................... 26
106
Science.................................... 27
107
Nuclear Waste Disposal..................... 27
115
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.. 28
116
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program...................... 28
118
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
Loan Program........................... 31
120
Departmental Administration................ 31
120
Office of Inspector General................ 32
121
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities......................... 32
126
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........... 33
135
Naval Reactors............................. 34
140
Office of the Administrator................ 34
142
Environmental and Other Defense Activities......... 35
142
Defense Environmental Cleanup.............. 35
142
Other Defense Activities................... 35
147
Power Marketing Administrations:
Bonneville Power Administration............ 36
150
Southeastern Power Administration.......... 36
150
Southwestern Power Administration.......... 37
150
Western Area Power Administration.......... 39
151
Falcon and Amistad Operating and
Maintenance Fund....................... 40
151
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission....... 41
152
Committee Recommendation...........................
152
General Provisions................................. 42
187
IV. Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.................... 51
188
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............ 52
188
Delta Regional Authority........................... 52
188
Denali Commission.................................. 52
189
Northern Border Regional Commission................ 53
189
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission............. 53
190
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................... 53
190
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............... 55
193
Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects........................ 55
193
Tennessee Valley Authority.........................
193
General Provision.................................. 56
194
V. Emergency Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief......
194
VI. General Provisions.....................................
194
House of Representatives Report Requirements...............
195
Additional Views of Norm Dicks and Peter Visclosky.........
228
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2012. The following table summarizes appropriations for
fiscal year 2011, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended
in the bill for fiscal year 2012.
INTRODUCTION
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2012 totals $30,638,727,000, $1,043,303,000 below
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2011 and $5,901,082,000
below the President's budget request.
Title I of the bill provides $4,768,406,000 for the
programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $88,807,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $195,406,000 above the budget request. The
fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Corps of Engineers
totals $4,573,000,000, including $58,000,000 of rescissions, of
which $35,000,000 is from emergency funding.
Title II provides $934,000,000 for the Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $160,525,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $117,380,000 below the budget request. The
Committee recommends $905,296,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation, $157,289,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$113,093,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends
$28,704,000 for the Central Utah Project, $3,236,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $4,287,000 below the budget request.
Title III provides $24,740,746,000 for the Department of
Energy, $850,430,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $5,943,056,000
below the budget request. Funding for the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA), which includes nuclear weapons
activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation, naval reactors,
and the Office of the NNSA Administrator, is $10,599,031,000,
$76,511,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $1,113,567,000 below the
request. This reduction is offset by $70,332,000 in rescinded
prior-year funds, resulting in a total program increase of
approximately $146,843,000 over fiscal year 2011.
The Committee recommends $4,800,000,000 for the Office of
Science, $1,304,636,000 for renewable energy and energy
efficiency programs; $733,633,000 for nuclear energy programs;
and $476,993,000 for fossil energy research and development.
Environmental management activities--non-defense
environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and
decommissioning, and defense environmental cleanup--are funded
at $5,599,740,000, $100,532,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$530,331,000 below the budget request. An additional maximum of
$150,000,000 from proceeds is directed for cleanup activities,
resulting in a total program level of $5,749,740,000.
Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided
at the requested levels.
Title IV provides $266,575,000 for several Independent
Agencies, $19,594,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $1,052,000
below the budget request. Net funding for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is $136,527,000, $461,000 below fiscal
year 2011 and $9,013,000 above the request. Funding for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General is provided in
addition to these sums.
Title V provides $1,028,684,400 of emergency funding for
the Corps of Engineers to respond to and to repair damages
caused by the flood and storm events of 2011.
Deficit Reduction
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
federal government would increase publicly-held debt from $10.4
trillion, 69 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in 2011,
to $20.8 trillion, 87 percent of GDP, at the end of 2021.
Expenditures to cover interest on the debt would nearly
quadruple over that period. Disturbingly, CBO found that the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2012 would actually
depress the nation's economic output. This does not represent
an economic strategy to place this country on a more
sustainable path.
The Committee recognizes that our nation needs an economic
plan which reduces government expenditures while freeing
American innovation from oppressive regulation and our markets
from distorting government involvement. Accordingly, the
Committee's overall spending level for fiscal year 2012 is
$1.019 trillion, a $30 billion reduction from fiscal year 2011,
and a $121 billion reduction from the President's budget
request. As a portion of that overall reduction, the Committee
recommendation for the Energy and Water Development bill,
excluding flood assistance, is $1.1 billion, or 3 percent,
below the fiscal year 2011 level, and nearly $6 billion, or 16
percent, below the President's request.
National Defense Programs
The origins of the Department of Energy are in the
Manhattan Project and the development of the first atomic bomb,
and the Committee considers the Department's national defense
programs, run by the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), to be its core mandate. Although having the funding for
nuclear weapons and naval reactors in the Department of Energy
instead of the Department of Defense has been, at times,
complicated, the Committee supports the clear civilian control
of these most destructive of capabilities that this arrangement
affords.
The Committee recommendation is strongly supportive of the
President's proposals to selectively increase investments in
the national defense accounts: Weapons Activities, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors. Our nation's
defense rests on a strong nuclear deterrent, and as our
stockpile ages, investments needed to keep these weapons
reliable, safe, and secure will likely grow. At the same time,
the Committee supports the Administration's efforts to prohibit
the spread of fissile materials overseas. Since the fall of the
Soviet Union, the United States government has made great
strides in limiting the potential spread of fissile materials,
but much more is left to be done. Finally, our country's
strategic triad depends on our ballistic missile submarines,
which are supported through the Naval Reactors account.
Each of these accounts is critical to our nation's defense.
However, taxpayer funding will continue to be limited, and it
is incumbent upon the experts at the National Nuclear Security
Administration to give their best guidance and feedback to
their partners at the Department of Defense, Department of
State, and other countries regarding the most cost-effective
opportunities to meet these defense imperatives.
Supporting American Competitiveness
Several of the agencies funded in this recommendation--the
Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in particular--have critical
roles in supporting the American economy. While the Committee
remains supportive of their work, it is increasingly concerned
that the balance between private sector innovation and public
sector intervention has tilted too much toward the public
sector. It is also concerned that the role and actions of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are more politicized today
than ever before.
Report on Opportunities for Domestic Manufacturers.--The
Committee requests a study to show what manufactured products
are purchased on a regular basis by or on behalf of the
Department of Energy and are not currently manufactured in the
United States. An interim report is required no later than 180
days after enactment of this Act, with the final study
submission no later than 365 days after enactment of this Act.
The final study is to be shared with the President's
Manufacturing Council, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Administrator and the Committee.
The Department of Energy hosts research and development in
its laboratories, supports innovation by academia and industry,
and provides market incentives to promote clean energy and
energy independence. The President, in his State of the Union
speech, emphasized the importance of continued work on clean
energy technology research and development for American
competitiveness. The Committee strongly agrees.
However, the Committee was concerned to see very little in
the President's request to justify nearly $2 billion in
increased funding to support the President's pledges. Simply
increasing funding for a worthy objective does not in itself
constitute a success. Instead of such massive, unjustified
increases, the Committee's recommendation includes funding for
inherently governmental functions, such as basic science, and
highly-leveraged, limited government involvement in the
marketplace. Appropriations are focused on long-term research
and early-stage development, and high-risk, high-reward
programs, areas which have the potential to bring great
benefits to society, but in which the private sector finds
little incentive to invest. Additionally, the recommendation
reduces funding for large research and development accounts
with little, if any, track-record of rewarding achievement and
terminating failures. Instead, funding is redirected to more
accountable projects and programs.
While the budget message of the President emphasizes
generating jobs and improving American competitiveness, the
budget request for the Corps of Engineers, which can contribute
to significant progress towards both goals, is reduced
substantially from fiscal year 2011. The budget message also
claims progress toward the goal of doubling U.S. exports by
2014 and states that the budget request supports ``. . .
rebuilding America's infrastructure so that U.S. companies can
ship their products and ideas from every corner in America to
anywhere in the world.'' The 2007 Commodity Flow Survey,
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, indicates that 35 percent of goods
by value and 73 percent by tonnage are exported via water
transportation. Yet the fiscal year 2012 budget request reduces
funding for navigation maintenance and improvements by five
percent from the fiscal year 2011 budget request and almost 14
percent from fiscal year 2010. The Committee recommendation
begins to correct this deficiency.
The Committee has long supported nuclear power as a
significant contributor to the nation's energy mix. America's
reactor fleet has not grown for decades while other nations
forged ahead with new reactor construction, and critical
manufacturing capabilities have begun to move overseas. This
bill supports Nuclear Energy activities that will help the
nation regain its position as the industry's leading
innovator--and as its leading manufacturer. The tragedy at the
Fukushima Daiichi power plant provides important lessons for
reactor safety, but the Committee believes nuclear power should
and will continue to safely meet a significant portion of our
energy needs in the future. This bill takes strides to make
reactors even safer by funding programs that demonstrate the
next generation of reactors employing inherently safe designs.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is charged with
overseeing the safety of our current nuclear reactors fleet and
responsible development of additional nuclear power in the
United States. Nuclear power is a critically important part of
this nation's energy mix, and the tragic events following the
earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011 show how important a
strong safety regime is to protect public health. Now, more
than ever, this country needs strong, objective regulatory
oversight for the nuclear energy sector.
Unfortunately, the Commission has recently suffered from
several events which have eroded the agency's reputation for
non-partisan leadership and oversight for the nuclear sector.
For example, Chairman Jaczko's close-out of the Yucca Mountain
license application review process, in direct contravention of
the NRC's Atomic Safety Licensing Board, shows a disregard for
both congressional direction and technical expertise.
Additionally, the Chairman's assumption of emergency powers to
respond to the Japanese nuclear crisis was a questionable use
of authorities provided to respond to crises with immediate,
direct potential impacts on the United States. As a result,
this recommendation includes greater congressional control over
the actions of the NRC, including new budgetary control points.
The Committee strongly urges the NRC to take whatever steps
necessary to regain its reputation for nonpartisan oversight
and regulation.
Project and Program Management
Financial management has been a core concern of this
Committee for many years, driven largely by repeated project
overruns at the Department of Energy and questionable
accounting practices at the Army Corps of Engineers. As the
federal budget continues to adjust in the coming years to the
nation's financial situation, taxpayer dollars must be
increasingly targeted to the highest performing projects and
programs. At this point, the Committee has no confidence that
either agency has the capability to ensure this is being done.
The Department of Energy has been on the Government
Accountability Office's ``high-risk list'' for project
management for over two decades, due mostly to cost overruns
and schedule delays for large construction projects. The
Department has made some progress in recent years to address
the causes of these deficiencies, but major construction
projects, especially for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), are still facing significant cost
increases.
The Committee's concern is not limited to the NNSA,
however, nor is it limited to construction projects. For
instance, budget and timeline estimates for the Waste Treatment
and Immobilization Project within the Defense Environmental
Cleanup account continue to escalate, and the GAO has recently
released a report criticizing the Department's management of
the B61 Life Extension Program. Within the Office of Science,
the Committee has little insight into the success or failure of
billions of dollars in basic science grants, a deficit of
information which this report begins to address. The Committee
will continue to work with the Department, and with outside
entities that can provide additional perspective, to improve
management and oversight.
Accounting problems persist at the Corps of Engineers, as
well. The Department of Defense Inspector General has
repeatedly reported that the Corps has pervasive internal
control weaknesses related to its financial reporting process.
For instance, in November 2010 the Inspector General found that
the quality of the financial management and oversight at the
Corps is so poor that the Inspector General had concerns about
whether the Corps would be able to continue the annual audit
process. The Inspector General went on to note that entity-wide
financial management weaknesses effectively prevent the Corps
from producing accurate and complete financial information,
which could result in significant misstatements. In March 2011
the Inspector General similarly found that internal controls
over Recovery Act funding were not effective, leading to
inadequate transparency and accountability of expenditures.
The Committee is deeply concerned that the Corps does not
have its finances managed suitably well even to allow for
outside auditors to identify instances of waste, fraud, or
abuse. Moreover, the Corps has been made aware of its financial
mismanagement over time and has refused to take definitive
action to make improvements. If the Corps wants to assure the
Committee that its budget request truly represents the highest
priority projects, these deficiencies must be corrected. In
fiscal year 2012, the Committee requires the Corps to undertake
an initiative to improve financial management. The Committee
requires periodic reporting on all major facets of the
initiative, as well as cooperation with an independent audit by
the Government Accountability Office.
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 has
used 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 (Corps), the Bureau of Reclamation, and
the Department of Energy.
The recommendation carries out the Committee's
responsibility to conduct in-depth oversight into all
activities funded in this bill and identifies numerous
inadequacies in the justification provided in the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2012. Instead of the massive
spending increases proposed by the Administration, the
Committee proposes a more responsible approach which
prioritizes investments based on performance and demonstrated
return of value to the taxpayer, reduces costs, limits
administrative overhead, promotes efficiency, targets funding
to meet core requirements, and improves transparency. For both
the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Committee's oversight activities emphasize transparency in
development of the budget request and prioritization of
projects. For the Department of Energy, the Committee's
oversight activities emphasize proper multi-year planning and
justification of the total costs of all proposed initiatives. A
summary of the major oversight efforts in the bill is provided
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency/account Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Corps of Engineers/Overall........ Initiative to improve financial
management, including
reporting requirements
Army Corps of Engineers/Overall........ Development of five-year
comprehensive plan
Army Corps of Engineers/Overall........ Reprogramming authority set in
statute
Army Corps of Engineers/Overall........ Emergency funds to remain at
headquarters until funds are
to be obligated
Army Corps of Engineers/Overall........ Establishes discretionary
structure to complete ongoing
projects
Army Corps of Engineers/Overall........ Reports on use of emergency
flooding funding
Army Corps of Engineers/Investigations. Report on project
prioritization plan
Army Corps of Engineers/Construction... Report on project
prioritization plan
Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and Report on project
Maintenance. prioritization plan
Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses....... Outyear plan on workforce needs
Bureau of Reclamation/Overall.......... Improved format for
communicating dam safety risk
Bureau of Reclamation/Overall.......... Reassessment of Rural Water
Programs
Bureau of Reclamation/Overall.......... National Academies study on
buried metallic water pipe
Bureau of Reclamation/Overall.......... Five-year comprehensive plan
Bureau of Reclamation/Overall.......... Reprogramming authority set in
statute
Department of Energy/Overall........... Report on opportunities for
domestic manufacturers
Department of Energy/Overall........... Report on progress toward multi-
year budgeting
Department of Energy/Overall........... Payment of audit costs from
only program direction funds
Department of Energy/Overall........... Prohibition on drawing funds
from programs for unrelated
initiatives
Department of Energy/Overall........... Prohibition on committing
future-year funds
Department of Energy/Overall........... Prohibition on funding or
initiating new activities not
funded by the Congress
Department of Energy/Overall........... Monthly Financial Balances
Report
Department of Energy/Overall........... Report on awards and
announcements for non-
competitive contracts
Department of Energy/Overall........... Report on inventory of
educational activities
Department of Energy/Overall........... Additional reporting on status
of contractor employee pension
plans
Department of Energy/Overall........... Reprogramming authority
formally set in statute
Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency Report on redirection of
and Renewable Energy (EERE). funding from appropriated
activities for other purposes
Department of Energy/EERE.............. Open competition and report on
technical merits of wind
demonstration projects
Department of Energy/EERE.............. Payment of all committed funds
before awarding additional
geothermal grants
Department of Energy/EERE.............. National Academies study on
market barriers and federal
role for electric vehicles
Department of Energy/EERE.............. Performance plan and status
report on Building Systems
Energy Innovation Hub
Department of Energy/EERE.............. Performance plan on Critical
Materials Energy Innovation
Hub
Department of Energy/EERE.............. Weatherization waiver authority
to increase funding efficiency
Department of Energy/Electricity Report on coordination of grid
Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER). modeling activities across
programs
Department of Energy/EDER.............. Report on government-wide
coordination for cyber
security research
Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy.... National waste repository
workforce and archiving plan
Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy.... Performance plan and status
report on Energy Innovation
Hub
Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy.... Report on small modular reactor
performance plan
Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy.... Report on investment criteria
for program priorities
Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy.... Requirement to preserve data
and records from Yucca
Mountain program
Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy.... Report on inventory of all
international activities
Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy.... Report on competition for
research and development funds
Department of Energy/Fossil Energy..... Report on panel recommendations
for hydraulic fracturing
Department of Energy/Naval Petroleum Long-term management plan for
Reserves. transitioning RMOTC to self-
sustaining facility
Department of Energy/Non-Defense Plan on cleanup of small sites
Environmental Cleanup. and remaining liabilities
Department of Energy/Uranium Enrichment Directs use of miscellaneous
D&D Fund. proceeds
Department of Energy/Science........... Report on effectiveness of STEM
education programs
Department of Energy/Science........... Report on exascale computing
targets and program plan
Department of Energy/Science........... Performance plan and report on
Fuels from Sunlight Energy
Innovation Hub
Department of Energy/Science........... Performance plan on Batteries
and Energy Storage Energy
Innovation Hub
Department of Energy/Science........... Performance plan and status
report on Energy Frontier
Research Centers
Department of Energy/Science........... Performance assessment of multi-
year research projects
Department of Energy/Science........... Plan for transition of medical
applications research to
appropriate agency
Department of Energy/Science........... Evaluation of BioEnergy
Research Centers
Department of Energy/Science........... Report on prioritization of
magnetic fusion energy
research activities
Department of Energy/Science........... Assessment of alternatives for
deep underground science
laboratory
Department of Energy/Science........... Ten-year plan for science
graduate fellowships
Department of Energy/Nuclear Waste Directs completion of Yucca
Disposal. Mountain license application
process
Department of Energy/Nuclear Waste Options for development of
Disposal. interim storage capacity for
high-level nuclear waste
Department of Energy/ARPA-Energy....... Report on guidelines for
project risk profile
Department of Energy/ARPA-Energy....... Project progress report and
performance interim assessment
Department of Energy/Title 17 Loan Notification requirements for
Guarantee Program. awards
Department of Energy/NNSA.............. Development of formal guidance
to collect financial
information from contractors
Department of Energy/NNSA.............. Plan to increase the domestic
supply of helium-3
Department of Energy/Weapons Activities New reporting requirements for
early life extension
activities
Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Directs separate reporting of
legacy contractor pension
costs
Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Report on status of the
workforce
Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Report on footprint reduction
Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Directs report on options to
improve the safety of
transporting nuclear weapons
Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Limits funding for B61 Life
Extension Program pending new
reporting
Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Plan to ensure the supply of
tritium
Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Report on aircraft capabilities
needed to conduct emergency
response activities
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Evaluation of the effectiveness
Nonproliferation. of radiation portal monitoring
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Updated plan for Russian
Nonproliferation. Surplus Materials Disposition
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors.... Separate funding for OHIO-
replacement research and
development
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors.... Directs transition to budgeting
for research and development
by ship platform
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors.... Separate funding for
infrastructure and operations
Department of Energy/Naval Reactors.... Multi-year infrastructure
recapitalization plan
Department of Energy/Defense National Academies study on
Environmental Cleanup. potential uses of H-Canyon
Department of Energy/Defense Semi-annual report on status of
Environmental Cleanup. Waste Treatment Plant
Department of Energy/Defense Requirement to certify the
Environmental Cleanup. safety of cleanup program
Department of Energy/Defense Evaluation of costs to resolve
Environmental Cleanup. safety concerns of Waste
Treatment Plant
Department of Energy/Defense Report on lessons learned from
Environmental Cleanup. Recovery Act projects
Department of Energy/Defense Report on projects funded
Environmental Cleanup. within operations and
maintenance accounts
Department of Energy/Other Defense Annual report on independent
Activities. health, safety and security
oversight activities
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Prohibits funding to close out
Yucca Mountain license
application
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Limitations on reprogramming
funding
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Semi-annual report on licensing
and regulatory activities
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.......... Report on pre-application
activities of advanced
reactors
Tennessee Valley Authority............. Inspector General audit and
inspection reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
INTRODUCTION
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act funds
the Civil Works missions of the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps). This program is responsible for activities in support
of coastal and inland navigation, flood and coastal storm
damage reduction, environmental protection and restoration,
hydropower, recreation, water supply and disaster preparedness
and response. The Corps also performs regulatory oversight of
navigable waters. Approximately 23,000 civilians and almost 300
military personnel located in eight Division offices and 38
District offices work to carry out the Civil Works program.
BENEFITS OF WATER RESOURCE INVESTMENTS
Through its Civil Works program, the Corps of Engineers
manages water resource investments that provide substantial and
myriad economic and social benefits to the nation. For example,
41 states, including all states east of the Mississippi River,
are served by the 926 coastal, Great Lakes, and inland harbors
and 12,000 miles of commercial inland channels maintained by
the Corps. In 2009, the value of foreign commerce handled at
ports totaled $1.156 trillion. By volume, more than 2.2 billion
tons of cargo were handled by U.S. ports and waterways (858.9
million tons inbound from foreign sources, 494.8 million tons
outbound, and 857.1 million tons domestic). Nearly three-
quarters of this volume consisted of crude oil, petroleum
products, coal and coke, and food and farm products.
The 692 dams managed by the Corps and the roughly 11,750
miles of levees built or controlled by the Corps reduce the
risk of flooding to people, businesses and other public
infrastructure investments. In fact, Corps projects prevented
damages of $29.5 billion in 2009 alone. Between 1928 and 2009,
each inflation-adjusted dollar invested in these projects
prevented $7.17 in damages.
Corps recreation sites host 370 million visits per year,
representing 20 percent of all visits to federal recreation
areas. Most Corps recreation sites are at lakes, more than 90
percent of which are located within 50 miles of a metropolitan
statistical area. One-third of all U.S. freshwater lake fishing
occurs at Corps sites, including 20,000 fishing tournaments
each year. In total, visitors spend $18 billion annually at
Corps recreation sites. This activity supports 350,000 full-
and part-time jobs.
The Corps ranks first among U.S. hydropower producers with
24 percent of U.S. hydropower capacity, or three percent of
total U.S. electric capacity. The 350 generating units owned
and operated by the Corps generate 68 billion kilowatt-hours
annually and approximately $4 billion in annual gross revenue.
Corps lakes have a total capacity of 329.2 million acre-
feet of storage, of which 9.76 million acre-feet is authorized
for municipal and industrial water supply. The total investment
in municipal and industrial water supply storage is $1.5
billion.
Much of this existing infrastructure is old and in need of
increased attention just to maintain the current level of
benefits to the nation. For example, the average age of
navigation lock chambers is 58 years, including 138 of 238 at
more than 50 years old. Additional benefits could be achieved
through improvements to existing assets and development of new
assets.
FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Civil Works
program of the Corps of Engineers totals $4,573,000,000, a
decrease of $284,213,000, or 5.9 percent, from fiscal year
2011. After accounting for one-time rescissions in the fiscal
year 2012 budget request and the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act, the request is a decrease of $424,213,000
from current levels. As in previous years, most of the
reduction is in the Construction account. Increases are
requested only for the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies,
Regulatory, and Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works accounts.
This level of investment, as with previous budget requests,
is not reflective of the Corps' importance to the national
economy, jobs, and international competitiveness. While the
Committee is firmly committed to addressing the nation's
deficit problem, the Committee urges the Administration to take
into account while developing its budget request the
extraordinary economic benefits of the projects historically
funded in the Corps accounts. Investments in the water resource
infrastructure discussed above, particularly navigation
infrastructure, not only provide short-term economic benefits
by directly creating jobs, but also provide the foundation
necessary for long-term economic growth.
Deep-draft Navigation.--The scheduled opening of an
expanded Panama Canal in 2014 has prompted a move toward larger
ships requiring deeper drafts. The United States already is
losing shipping capacity because the Corps is not fully funded
to maintain the current authorized depths of ports and
waterways. The nation risks losing further shares of the cargo
market to Canada and Mexico if we are not prepared with deep-
draft capacity sufficient to support these vessels.
The proposed reduction in funding for maintenance of deep-
draft navigation is particularly perplexing since the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), which is intended to fund 100
percent of the maintenance dredging requirements of coastal and
Great Lakes ports, will have an estimated balance of more than
$6.1 billion at the beginning of fiscal year 2012. The budget
request does not propose drawing down the balance to address
unmet dredging needs, and, in fact, proposes to use less than
one-half the estimated receipts for fiscal year 2012 for
maintenance dredging. Also included in the budget request is a
proposal to expand the activities eligible for reimbursement
from the HMTF, although no specific details have been provided
to date. The Committee strongly opposes any attempt to divert
this revenue from the purposes for which it was collected,
namely maintenance dredging. Also, in general, for the top 59
ports, the Corps is only able to maintain authorized depths,
only within the middle half of the channel, 33 percent of the
time. The fiscal year 2012 budget request is unlikely to
improve that statistic. It is clear, therefore, that this
proposal to expand HMTF uses is not based on a lack of need for
funds for existing eligible dredging activities.
Inland Navigation.--Rather than attempting to fix a problem
that does not exist with the HMTF, the Administration's time
would be better spent working with industry and the Congress to
develop a viable solution to the lack of adequate investment in
the inland waterways system. The previous Administration, in
its fiscal year 2008 budget request, noted the depletion of
accumulated balances in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF).
The fiscal year 2009 budget proposed a shift from the existing
diesel tax to a lockage fee as the revenue source of the IWTF.
That proposal was developed with no stakeholder input and was
soundly rejected by the navigation industry.
In April 2010, the Inland Waterways Users Board approved
and forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works its own proposal for addressing the needs of the inland
system. That industry proposal was developed with technical
assistance from the Corps but no Administration involvement.
The Corps is in the process of implementing some of the project
management recommendations, but the Administration rejected
many of the other recommendations as attempts to shift current
cost-share requirements from the IWTF to the general treasury.
The Committee continues to support the only prudent
budgetary option under these circumstances--that of limiting
investment to no more than annual revenue. This decision is not
without cost or risk, however. With each fiscal year that
passes with no legislative changes to provide additional
funding, costs go up for projects delayed or deferred and the
chance of one or more significant failures of the aging
infrastructure increases. The Committee encourages the
Administration to work with industry and the appropriate
committees of the Congress to develop an equitable solution to
this problem as soon as possible.
Recreation.--In April 2010, the President established the
America's Great Outdoor Initiative to ``develop a 21st Century
conservation and recreation agenda.'' In February 2011, a
report with recommendations on how to accomplish these goals
was issued. Unfortunately, these recommendations focus more on
acquiring new federal lands and funding city parks than on
maintaining or expanding recreation opportunities at existing
federal sites. The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
Corps reduces funding for recreation by $21,000,000, or 12
percent, from the fiscal year 2011 budget request. This
reduction will necessitate park closures or other reductions in
services at Corps parks, which provide the only recreational
opportunity available to some of the population.
Hydropower.--The President has discussed a goal of
generating 80 percent of our nation's electricity from clean
energy sources by 2035. Existing federal hydropower
infrastructure is aging and in need of re-capitalization to
maintain current levels of power generated. The study conducted
in response to section 1834 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
identified significant additional hydropower potential at
existing Corps facilities that could feasibly be developed. Yet
the fiscal year 2012 budget request reduces hydropower funding
by $25,000,000, or 12 percent, from the fiscal year 2011
request. The Committee is somewhat encouraged by the fact that
the Corps is working with the Power Marketing Administrations
and private interests to explore alternative financing options.
The Committee also supports continued cooperation with other
agencies, including the Department of Energy, to develop
improved technologies to better use this valuable domestic
source of energy.
Budget Criteria.--According to the Administration, the
Corps budget request is a performance-based budget developed
using objective performance criteria. Within the Investigations
account, funding was allocated based on continuing the
``highest performing studies and design,'' but the Committee
has been unable to ascertain what objective measures qualify a
study as high-performing.
Construction funds were allocated based on a mix of factors
including severity of dam safety problems, benefit-to-cost
ratio, risk-to-life index, Endangered Species Act compliance,
and cost-effective restoration of a nationally or regionally
significant aquatic ecosystem. Operation and Maintenance funds
were allocated based on a mix of factors including tonnage
movements, risk and consequences assessment, and visitation at
recreation sites. It is entirely unclear, though, how any of
these factors were ranked or weighted during development of the
budget. Most concerning is the fact that these metrics were
applied almost exclusively to those studies and projects
proposed for funding in a previous budget request. In other
words, the hundreds of studies and projects previously funded
by congressional direction were not even eligible to compete
for inclusion in the President's budget. While this exclusion
is not new this year, or even with this Administration, it
nevertheless casts significant doubt on the true objectivity of
the budget development process.
Account Details.--The budget request for the Investigations
account is $104,000,000, $22,746,000 below fiscal year 2011.
The request assumes initiation of the two proposed new starts
in the fiscal year 2011 budget and proposes funding for four
additional new studies. Funding is included to complete six
planning, engineering and design phases, all within the
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration authorization.
The budget proposes $1,480,000,000 for the Construction
account, a decrease of $133,822,000 from fiscal year 2011, or a
decrease of $309,822,000 after accounting for a one-time
rescission in fiscal year 2011. Full funding is requested for
the most critical dam safety projects and for meeting legal
requirements, such as Biological Opinions. Approximately
$154,000,000 is requested for inland waterway construction and
rehabilitation, an amount constrained by the amount of
anticipated revenues to the IWTF. No new funding is proposed
for the Continuing Authorities Program. The budget request
assumes initiation of the two new starts proposed in the fiscal
year 2011 budget and contains funding for one additional new
project. Funding is requested to complete three projects.
The budget request proposes $152,000,000, including a one-
time rescission of $58,000,000, for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account, a decrease of $89,906,000 from fiscal year
2011. Public Law 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-
Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, included the
rescission of $22,000,000 of the $58,000,000 rescission
proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. The Committee
understands that the remainder of the proposed rescission,
which is emergency funding, was used to respond to flooding in
the Mississippi River basin.
The fiscal year 2012 Operation and Maintenance account is
proposed at $2,314,000,000, a reduction of $51,759,000 from the
current year. The budget request assumes initiation of the one
new start activity proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget
request and proposes one additional new start activity.
Proposed funding for the Regulatory Program account is
$196,000,000, an increase of $6,380,000 from fiscal year 2011.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request is $109,000,000 for the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program account, a
decrease of $20,740,000 from the current level.
The budget request includes $27,000,000 for the Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies account. No funding was
appropriated in fiscal year 2011. This funding primarily is for
preparedness activities, with $4,000,000 proposed for expansion
of the Silver Jackets program.
The Expenses and Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works are proposed at $185,000,000 and $6,000,000, an
increase of $370,000 and $1,010,000 respectively, from fiscal
year 2011.
The budget request also includes authorization language on
issues of varying urgency. This continues the more recent trend
of the executive branch ignoring the established legislative
authorization process in favor of piecemeal authorizations on
the appropriations bill. By not working with the congressional
authorizing committees on authorization matters, the Corps
misses the opportunity to address policy and project matters in
a more deliberative and comprehensive fashion. The Committee
supports the intent of the authorization provisions included in
the budget request, including the acquisition of property for
the Engineer Research and Development Center laboratory
facilities in New Hampshire, but the Committee includes only
the most critical and time-sensitive provisions of the budget
request in this bill.
FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Historically, the Committee has encouraged the
Administration to provide five-year investment plans for all of
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 hope 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. 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. The Committee would welcome
a dialogue to reach a mutually-agreeable way to comprehensively
plan for all initiated projects.
FLOODPLAIN MAPPING AND LEVEE CERTIFICATIONS
Communities from around the country have expressed concern
and frustration with the process by which the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) is updating floodplain maps and the
treatment of levees within that process. The Committee supports
a concerted effort by the Corps to provide proactive
information on levees within its jurisdiction and to be an
active partner with communities around the nation as they seek
to certify their levees by producing an inventory of all
levees, both federal and non-federal, within the next year.
Additionally, the Committee encourages the Corps to develop and
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
legislative proposal addressing any statutory impediments to
providing such assistance with levee certifications. The
Committee will continue to scrutinize the floodplain mapping
process and the role the Corps plays in that process.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING
To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2012
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.
MANAGEMENT OF EMERGENCY FUNDS
In response to pressing national emergencies caused by
natural and other disasters, the Congress has provided the
Corps with billions of dollars in supplemental emergency
funding, excluding Recovery Act funds, over the past five
years. While some of those funds were designated for certain
projects and areas, other funds were provided without
congressional direction based on Corps estimates of funding
needs due to extreme events. Much to the dismay of the
Committee, the Corps continues to carry over hundreds of
millions of dollars in emergency funds. It is understandable
that some larger or more complex structural repairs may take
time to plan, design, and construct. The level of unobligated
funds, however, seems to be in excess of what would be expected
from that type of situation.
Damage caused to Corps facilities, and other work the Corps
must carry out in responding to disasters, should be the only
factor the Corps considers when determining capability for
supplemental funding. When the Corps expresses capability for
emergency funding and does not expend those funds in a timely
manner, the only conclusion the Committee can reach is that the
Corps includes in its estimates activities that are not
pressing needs and, therefore, should be addressed in the
annual budget request.
Given the recent experiences with the Corps management of
emergency funding, the Committee directs the Corps to
restructure its emergency funding financial management. First,
the Corps shall only express capability for emergency funding
for projects that are a direct result of disasters that occur.
Second, Corps Headquarters is prohibited from dispersing
emergency funds to the field until capability is shown and
funds must be obligated. If the field does not obligate funds
within 60 days of the funds being sent to the field,
Headquarters is directed to redirect those funds for use in
other regions of the country where emergency activities require
immediate funding.
NEW STARTS
The Administration proposes a combined reduction of
$208,327,000 from Investigations, Construction, and Operation
and Maintenance from fiscal year 2011 and a reduction of
$693,000,000 (excluding emergency funding) from fiscal year
2010, the last time the Committee provided any new starts.
While the Committee strongly supports additional investment in
water resource projects, the funding limitations set forth by
the Administration present the Committee with a difficult
choice between starting new authorized projects in the Corps
and only funding those projects that are ongoing in an effort
to complete them. Faced with this difficult choice, the
Committee has determined that prioritizing ongoing projects is
the only responsible course of action and, therefore,
recommends no new starts in any account in fiscal year 2012.
The Committee notes that the budget request seems to define
a new start as any project, study or activity not previously
included in the President's budget request for a particular
account. That is not how the Committee defines a new start. If
a project or study was funded in a particular account in an
appropriations Act within the previous three fiscal years, it
is not a new start. Additionally, if funding for an established
activity that will remain substantively unchanged is
transferred from one account to another, it is not a new start.
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 has
reviewed the historical format of appropriations for the Corps
to see if there is a more transparent way to highlight
programmatic priorities without abandoning congressional
oversight responsibilities. This report includes a modification
to the format used in previous years.
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. This year, to advance its programmatic
priorities, the Committee has included additional funding for
certain categories of projects. Also included are criteria by
which the Corps is to evaluate and select specific projects to
fund within those allocations. The Corps is directed to report
to the Committee, within 45 days of enactment of this Act, on
its final spending plan for fiscal year 2012.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $4,768,406,000 for the
Corps of Engineers, $88,807,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$195,406,000 above the request. After accounting for one-time
rescissions in fiscal year 2011 of $198,000,000, proposed
rescissions of $58,000,000 in the request and a one-time
rescission for fiscal year 2012 of $50,000,000, the
recommendation is $236,807,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$187,406,000 above the request.
A table summarizing the fiscal year 2011 enacted
appropriation, the fiscal year 2012 budget request, and the
Committee-recommended levels is provided below.
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2011 FY 2012 Committee
Account enacted request recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations.................................................. $126,746 $104,000 $104,000
Construction.................................................... 1,789,822 1,480,000 1,615,941
Rescission.................................................. -176,000 -- -50,000
Mississippi River and tributaries............................... 263,906 210,000 210,000
Rescission.................................................. -22,000 -58,000 --
Operation and Maintenance....................................... 2,365,759 2,314,000 2,366,465
Regulatory program.............................................. 189,620 196,000 196,000
FUSRAP.......................................................... 129,740 109,000 109,000
Flood control and coastal emergencies........................... -- 27,000 27,000
Expenses........................................................ 184,630 185,000 185,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works... 4,990 6,000 5,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Corps of Engineers--Civil........................ 4,857,213 4,573,000 4,768,406
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriation, 2011................................... $126,746,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 104,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 104,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -22,746,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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 $104,000,000,
$22,746,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget
request.
The budget request for this account, and the approved
Committee allowance, are shown on the following table:
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee notes
that funding for Savannah Harbor Expansion, GA, is provided in
the Construction account, as in previous years.
Additional Investigations.--The fiscal year 2012 budget
request does not reflect the extent of need for project studies
funding. The Corps has numerous studies initiated that will be
suspended under the limits of the budget request. These studies
could lead to projects with significant economic benefits,
particularly by increasing national competitiveness through
marine transportation improvements and by avoiding damages
caused by flooding and coastal storms. While the Committee is
unable to increase Investigations funding overall, the
Committee is able to provide additional funding for ongoing
project studies by finding savings elsewhere in the account.
The Corps is directed to allocate the ``Additional
Investigations'' funds to feasibility and preconstruction,
engineering and design activities for ongoing navigation and
flood and coastal storm damage reduction project studies. No
funds may be used to initiate new studies. Further, none of
these funds may be used to alter any existing cost-share
requirements. The Corps shall report to the Committee, within
45 days of enactment of this Act, on project-specific
allocations.
Planning Program Modernization.--The Committee is aware
that the Corps has undertaken a planning modernization effort,
including a National Planning Pilot Program of approximately
seven to nine pilot studies to help test, develop and refine
improvements to the planning process. The Committee encourages
the Corps to continue to focus on mechanisms to streamline
project studies and increase the cost-effectiveness of federal
planning investments.
Flood Risk Reduction Assistance to State and Local
Governments.--The Committee includes the requested amounts for
the Floodplain Management Services and the national Flood Risk
Management Program. Through these programs, the Corps provides
technical assistance to communities looking to better manage
flood risk. The Committee encourages the Corps to explore
additional ways of providing recommendations and guidance on
reducing flood risk to state and local governments,
particularly those communities with aging infrastructure.
CONSTRUCTION
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2011................................... $1,613,822,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 1,480,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 1,565,941,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -47,881,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. +85,941,000
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
$1,565,941,000, $47,881,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$85,941,000 above the budget request. After accounting for a
one-time rescission in fiscal year 2011 of $176,000,000 and the
rescission of $50,000,000 in this bill, the recommendation is
$173,881,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $135,941,000 above the
budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Florida.--For several
years now, funding for Everglades restoration has constituted
more than 10 percent of the total Construction account budget
request. While the Committee continues to support funding for
Everglades restoration, this share of funding is not
sustainable or equitable, particularly as overall Construction
funding trends downward. The Committee provides a total of
$130,000,000 for restoration projects in the Everglades, a
reduction of $32,724,000 from the President's budget request.
This funding level is still eight percent of the total
construction account. This reduction is based on the amount of
savings from fiscal year 2011 plus the funding the unlikely to
be obligated in fiscal year 2012 due to schedule delays.
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The President's budget
request includes funding for the Savannah Harbor Expansion,
Georgia project in the Investigations account. As in previous
fiscal years, however, the Committee includes that funding in
the Construction account.
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier,
Illinois.--The budget request includes funding for Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier in both the
Construction and Operation and Maintenance accounts. Since the
submission, however, the Corps informed the Committee that the
entire amount is needed in the Construction account and no
funding is needed in the Operation and Maintenance account. The
Committee has accommodated this shift in account funding.
Additional Construction.--The fiscal year 2012 budget
request does not reflect the extent of funding needed for Corps
projects under construction. The Corps has ongoing, authorized
Construction projects that would cost tens of billions of
dollars to complete, yet it has requested a mere fraction of
the funding necessary to complete those projects. The Corps is
directed to allocate the ``Additional Navigation'' and
``Additional Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction'' funds
to specific ongoing projects based on the following set of
criteria:
number of jobs created directly by the
funded activity;
high project benefit-to-cost ratio;
ability to obligate the funds allocated
within the fiscal year, including consideration of the
ability of the non-federal sponsor to provide any
required cost-share;
ability to complete the project, separable
element, or project phase within the funds allocated;
for flood and coastal storm damage
reduction,
--population at risk; and
--economic activity or public infrastructure
at risk; and
for navigation, number of jobs or level of
economic activity to be supported by completion of the
project, separable element, or project phase.
No funds may be used to start new projects. Funds may not
be used for projects in the Continuing Authorities Program.
Further, none of these funds may be used to alter any existing
cost-share requirements.
The Corps shall report to the Committee, within 45 days of
enactment of this Act, on project-specific allocations,
including an explanation for each allocation. This report shall
include the project rankings based on these criteria. No funds
shall be obligated for any project under this program which has
not already been justified in such a report.
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).--The inability of the
Corps to effectively and efficiently implement the Continuing
Authorities Program is a source of regular frustration to the
Committee. For a program that historically accounts for less
than 10 percent of the funds provided to the Construction
account, the Committee is deeply troubled by the amount of time
it is required to spend on oversight of the program and
management of the Corps.
The Committee has worked with the Corps since 2006 to make
changes to how the Committee funds the program in an effort to
eliminate barriers to program execution. Despite all of those
changes, though, the Corps had nearly $300,000,000 in carryover
funds from fiscal year 2010 to 2011. The Fiscal Year 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act rescinded $100,000,000 from this
program. Based on Corps estimates of funds to be obligated in
fiscal year 2011, the Committee believes there will still be
sufficient carryover into fiscal year 2012 to sustain the
program. Therefore, consistent with the budget request, the
Committee provides no new funds for the Continuing Authorities
Program. Since the Corps has not yet informed the Committee of
amounts by section expected to be carried over into fiscal year
2012 in light of the rescission, the Committee is unable to
approve or disapprove the proposal to reprogram funds from
Sections 14, 103, 107, and 208 to the remaining sections.
For fiscal year 2012, the Committee directs the Corps to
continue to fund the Continuing Authorities Program based on
the nationwide prioritization of projects using the criteria
set forth below. The Corps shall hold CAP funds at Headquarters
until the need for a project is determined. If funds for that
project cannot be used at the district level, the district
immediately shall send those funds back to Headquarters for
reassignment. Under no circumstances shall the Corps initiate
new projects in Section 205, 206, or 1135. New projects may be
initiated in the remaining sections after an assessment is made
that such projects can be funded over time based on historical
averages of the appropriation for that section and after
approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
The Corps shall prioritize CAP projects nationwide based on
the following criteria, listed in order of priority:
Priorities for Design and Implementation (D&I) Phase:
1. D&I work for continuing projects that have
executed Project Partnership Agreements (PPAs).
2. D&I funding for projects approved by Corps
Headquarters to execute a PPA.
3. D&I work that does not require executed agreements
(e.g. continuing or pre-PPA design) for ongoing
projects.
4. D&I funding for projects with approved Feasibility
Reports moving into D&I.
Priorities for Feasibility Phase:
1. Feasibility phase funding for projects with
executed Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement (FCSA).
2. Feasibility phase funding for projects approved by
Corps Headquarters to execute a FCSA.
3. Feasibility phase work which does not require a
FCSA for ongoing projects.
4. Feasibility phase funding for initiations or
restarts.
Remaining funds, if any, may be allocated to additional
projects in accordance with the aforementioned priorities,
except that all funds for Section 14 projects shall be
allocated to the most urgently needed projects.
The Corps is directed to maintain a split of approximately
80-20 percent between the Design and Implementation (D&I) phase
and the Feasibility phase within each authority. This split
should be considered a guideline only, as there may be specific
circumstances that require a slightly different weighting.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
Appropriation, 2011................................... $241,906,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 152,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 210,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -31,906,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. +58,000,000
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 $210,000,000,
$31,906,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $58,000,000 above the
budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission in
fiscal year 2011, the recommendation is $53,906,000 below
fiscal year 2011. The budget request includes a rescission of
$58,000,000 for funds that are no longer required for their
intended purposes. Of this proposed rescission, however,
$23,000,000 was included in the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act, and the Committee understands that the
balance is being used to support the response to recent
flooding in the Mississippi River basin.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Appropriation, 2011.................................. $2,365,759,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................ 2,314,000,000
Recommended, 2012.................................... 2,366,465,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011.............................. +706,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................ +52,465,000
This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and
related activities at water resource projects the Corps
operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of
dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other
facilities as authorized in various River and Harbor, Flood
Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. Related
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of
completed projects, removal of sunken vessels, and the
collection of domestic, waterborne commerce statistics.
Portions of this account are financed through the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$2,366,465,000, $706,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $52,465,000
above the budget request.
The budget request for this account and the approved
Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier,
Illinois.--The recommendation includes funding for this project
solely in the Construction account, due to updated requirements
submitted by the Corps subsequent to the submission of the
fiscal year 2012 budget request.
Additional Operation and Maintenance.--As discussed earlier
in the report, the fiscal year 2012 budget request does not
fund operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of our nation's
aging infrastructure sufficiently to ensure continued
competitiveness in a global marketplace. Federal navigation
channels maintained at only a fraction of authorized
dimensions, and navigation locks and hydropower facilities well
beyond design life all result in economic inefficiencies and
risks of infrastructure failure, which cause substantial
economic losses. The Committee believes that investing in
operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of infrastructure
today will save taxpayers vast sums of money in the future. The
Committee provides funds for ``Additional Flood and Coastal
Storm Damage Reduction'' and ``Additional Navigation''
activities. The Corps is directed to allocate these funds based
on the following set of criteria:
number of jobs created directly by the
funded activity;
high benefit-to-cost ratio or high cost-
effectiveness;
ability to obligate the funds allocated
within the fiscal year;
ability to complete the project, separable
element, or project phase within the funds allocated;
risk of imminent failure or closure of the
facility;
for flood and coastal storm damage
reduction,
--population at risk; and
--economic activity or public infrastructure
at risk; and
for navigation,
--number of jobs or level of economic
activity to be supported by completion of the
project, separable element, or project phase;
and
--revenues collected for the purpose of the
activity.
No funds may be used to start new projects or programs.
Further, none of these funds may be used to alter any existing
cost-share requirements.
The Committee recognizes the importance of small harbors
and waterways to regional and local economies. While federal
activities must be focused on the greatest national benefits,
especially in this tight budgetary climate, the Corps should
give consideration to the needs of these smaller projects,
particularly those with national defense or public health and
safety importance, in order to develop a reasonable and
equitable allocation under this account.
The Corps shall report to the Committee, within 45 days of
enactment of this Act, on project-specific allocations,
including an explanation for each allocation. This report shall
include the project rankings based on these criteria. No funds
shall be obligated for any project under this program which has
not already been justified in such a report.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriation, 2011................................... $189,620,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 196,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 196,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +6,380,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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 $196,000,000,
$6,380,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget
request.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)
Appropriation, 2011................................... $129,740,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 109,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 109,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -20,740,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level
radioactive materials and mixed wastes located at sites
contaminated as a result of the nation's early efforts to
develop atomic weapons.
The Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of
Energy to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP
sites where the Department had not completed cleanup. The
Committee did not transfer to the Corps ownership of and
accountability for real property interests, which remain with
the Department. The Committee expects the Department to
continue to provide its institutional knowledge and expertise
to ensure the success of this program and to serve the nation
and the affected communities.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $109,000,000,
$20,740,000 below fiscal year 2011 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, 2011................................... $--
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 27,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 27,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +27,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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 requested amount is the base funding
necessary for preparedness activities.
The Committee regrets the loss of livelihood and property
due to the recent flooding in the Mississippi River region and
notes that billions more in losses would be sustained each year
were it not for the flood control infrastructure the Corps has
developed and maintains in the region. The Committee strongly
encourages the Corps to develop detailed and specific requests,
in a timely fashion, for needed funding to respond to the
recent flooding in the Mississippi River region and to keep the
Committee updated should these needs change.
The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for this account,
$27,000,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget
request.
EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2011................................... $184,630,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 185,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 185,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +370,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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 $185,000,000,
$370,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget
request. The Committee requests that the Corps evaluate its
current workforce model in light of the reduction in
appropriated resources since fiscal year 2010 and provide an
outyear plan to the Committee not later than 180 days following
enactment of the Act.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
Appropriation, 2011................................... $4,990,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 6,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 5,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +10,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -1,000,000
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
oversees the Civil Works budget and policy, whereas the Corps'
executive direction and management of the Civil Works program
are funded from the Expenses account.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000,
$10,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $1,000,000 below the budget
request.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for
the purchase or hire of passenger motor vehicles.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
The bill contains 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
for any A-76 or High Performing Organizations competitive
sourcing actions.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds
in this Act to carry out any contract that commits funds beyond
the amounts appropriated for that program, project, or
activity.
The bill continues a provision prohibiting the award of
continuing contracts for any project for which funds are
derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund until such time as
a long-term mechanism to enhance revenues sufficient to meet
the cost-sharing requirements is enacted.
The bill continues a provision requiring the submission of
any Chief's report to the appropriate committees of the
Congress.
The bill contains a provision allowing the Corps to
implement actions to prevent aquatic nuisance species from
dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic
connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River
Basin.
The bill contains a provision authorizing the transfer of
funds from the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to
the Construction account in order to continue progress on the
Greater New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction
System.
The bill contains a provision authorizing the transfer of
up to $3,800,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate
for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers projects.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds from being
used to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction
under the Clean Water Act.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds from being
used to relocate, or study the relocation of, any regional
division headquarters located at a military installation.
The bill contains a provision to expand existing
authorization to receive and use funds provided by non-federal
sponsors and to require congressional notification of use of
such authority.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2011................................... $31,940,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 32,991,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 28,704,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -3,236,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -4,287,000
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 for fiscal year 2012 to carry
out the Central Utah Project is $28,704,000, $3,236,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $4,287,000 below the request. Within the
funds recommended, the following amounts are provided for the
Central Utah Water Conservation District by activity, as
outlined in the budget request:
Utah Lake Drainage Basin Delivery System.............. $14,200,000
Water Conservation Measures........................... 10,000,000
Total, Central Utah Water Conservation District... 24,200,000
The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount
of $2,000,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission. These funds, as
proposed in the budget request, are to be used to implement the
fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation
projects authorized in Title III of Public Law 102-575; and to
complete mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 Bureau of
Reclamation planning documents, as follows:
Provo River/Utah Lake Fish and Wildlife........... $600,000
Diamond Fork Fish and Wildlife.................... 400,000
Duchesne/Strawberry Rivers Fish and Wildlife...... 500,000
CRSP/Statewide Fish, Wildlife and Recreation...... 300,000
Section 201(a)(1) Mitigation Measures............. 200,000
Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 2,000,000
Conservation Commission..........................
For program oversight and administration, the Committee
recommends $1,550,000, the same as the budget request. For fish
and wildlife conservation programs, the Committee provides
$954,000, the same as the budget request.
Bureau of Reclamation
FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET OVERVIEW
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is
to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in
an environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public. Since its establishment by the
Reclamation Act of 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has
developed water supply facilities that have contributed to
sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life in
the western states. Lands and communities served by Reclamation
projects have been developed to meet agricultural, tribal,
urban, and industrial needs. Reclamation continues to develop
authorized facilities to store and convey new water supplies
and is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17
western states. Reclamation maintains 476 dams and 348
reservoirs with the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of
water. These facilities deliver water to more than 31 million
people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses and 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.
Reclamation also is the nation's second largest producer of
hydroelectric power, generating, on average, 40 billion
kilowatt hours of electricity each year from 58 power plants.
In addition, its facilities provide substantial flood control,
recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits.
As Reclamation's large impoundments and appurtenant
facilities reach their design life, the projected cost of
operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating Reclamation
infrastructure continues to grow, yet Reclamation has not
budgeted funding sufficient to implement a comprehensive
program to reduce its maintenance backlog. At the same time,
Reclamation is increasingly relied upon to provide water supply
to federally-recognized Indian tribes through water
settlements, rural communities through its Title I Rural Water
Program, and municipalities through its Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse Program. Balancing these competing
priorities will be challenging and requires active
participation and leadership on the part of Reclamation and its
technical staff.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation totals $1,018,389,000. The Committee recommendation
totals $905,296,000, $157,289,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$113,093,000 below the budget request.
A table summarizing the fiscal year 2011 enacted
appropriation, the fiscal year 2012 budget request, and the
Committee recommendation is provided below.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2011 FY 2012 Committee
Account enacted request recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Related Resources.. $911,673 $805,187 $822,300
Central Valley Project 49,914 53,068 53,068
Restoration Fund............
California Bay-Delta 39,920 39,651 35,928
Restoration.................
Policy and Administration.... 61,078 60,000 60,000
Indian Water Rights -- 51,483 --
Settlements.................
San Joaquin River Restoration -- 9,000 -66,000,000
Fund........................
Total, Bureau of 1,062,585 1,018,389 905,296,000
Reclamation.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2011................................... $911,673,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 805,187,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 822,300,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -89,373,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. +17,113,000
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 2012, the Committee recommends
$822,300,000, $89,373,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$17,113,000 above the budget request. Included in the Committee
recommendation is funding for 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 these proposed new
accounts, the recommendation is $43,370,000 below the budget
request.
Title XVI Program.--The budget request proposes funneling
most of the funding for Title XVI water reclamation and reuse
projects through a Commissioner's Office grant program. Unlike
most traditional grant programs, however, each Title XVI
project has been authorized individually. There is a well-
known, finite universe of projects that may be funded. The
Committee is concerned that this type of grant program simply
creates an unnecessary administrative burden for project
sponsors without providing any additional substantive or
administrative benefits. If nothing else, it is clear that
requesting funding for a grant program is less transparent than
requesting funding for individual projects.
Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling, CA.--Funding
is not included for the Calleguas Municipal Water District
Title XVI project, since funding was awarded in fiscal year
2011 to reach the limit of authorized federal assistance.
Dam Safety.--The Committee is committed to providing the
resources necessary to ensure safe operation of Reclamation's
numerous dams. The information provided in the budget request
and justification is insufficient to make an independent
judgment of the adequacy of the budget request. The Committee
encourages Reclamation to develop a more transparent format for
communicating to the Congress the condition of Reclamation
dams, the levels of investment needed to address any structural
problems, and the criteria used to prioritize work.
Indian Water Rights Settlements.--The budget request
proposes a new appropriations account for four new and one
existing Indian water rights settlements. The Committee
strongly supports funding to uphold federal commitments to the
Indian Nations set out in these settlements. The Committee is
not convinced, however, that a separate appropriations account
is necessary to uphold these commitments. In fact, the budget
request left funding for certain Indian settlement requirements
in the Water and Related Resources account. Therefore, the
Committee includes funding proposed for the new settlements in
Water and Related Resources as well.
Rural Water Programs.--While the budget request includes
funding for rural water systems associated with the proposed
Indian Water Rights Settlements account, funding for existing
rural water projects, some of which also benefit Tribes, is
practically eliminated. The Committee directs Reclamation to
reassess the allocation of funding among these projects, taking
into consideration equity concerns and the ability to use the
funds in this fiscal year, as well as any legal obligations.
Within 60 days of enactment of this Act and consistent with the
reprogramming requirements established in this Act, Reclamation
shall report to the Committee on any changes in allocation
among the rural water projects.
San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.--The budget request
proposes an account separate from the Water and Related
Resources account for discretionary funding of San Joaquin
River Restoration activities. When asked by the Committee,
Reclamation acknowledged that implementation would not be
affected by which account included funding. The Committee sees
no compelling reason to create yet another project-specific
appropriations account, and, therefore, includes San Joaquin
River Restoration within the Water and Related Resources
account, although no funding is provided.
Arthur Bowman Dam.--The Committee supports efforts by the
Bureau of Reclamation to increase hydropower capacity at its
facilities. The study conducted in response to section 1834 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 identified significant additional
hydropower potential at existing facilities that could feasibly
be developed. Since funding is not currently available to
pursue all such opportunities, it would seem unnecessary for
the Reclamation to compete with private sector interests at any
particular location. The Committee, therefore, prohibits
Reclamation from using any funds provided in this Act to
proceed with the development of federal hydropower at Arthur
Bowman Dam located in Crook County, Oregon. Reclamation may,
however, proceed with the development of non-federal hydropower
at Arthur Bowman Dam, as requested.
Buried Metallic Water Pipe.--The Committee has become aware
of several concerns regarding implementation and review of
Reclamation's Technical Memorandum 8140-CC-2004-1 (``Corrosion
Considerations for Buried Metallic Water Pipe''). Specifically,
the Committee is concerned that Reclamation's use of this
memorandum may be holding different materials to different
standards of reliability and increasing project costs
unnecessarily. Therefore, Reclamation should not use the
memorandum as the sole basis to deny funding or approval of a
project or to disqualify any material from use in highly
corrosive soils. Additionally, the Committee directs
Reclamation to follow the recommendation of the National
Academy of Sciences to assemble data on pipeline reliability
for all types of pipe specified in Table 2 of Technical
Memorandum 8140-CC-2004-1 along with the specified corrosion
protection applied in the various soil types (``Review of the
Bureau of Reclamation's Corrosion Prevention Standards for
Ductile Iron Pipe'' (2009)). Further, Reclamation shall
contract with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate all
of these materials along with the specified corrosion
protection applied in the various soil types. This review
should also include an analysis of the economics, cost-
effectiveness and life-cycle costs associated with the various
materials under evaluation.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriation, 2011................................... $49,914,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 53,068,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 53,068,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +3,154,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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 2012, the Committee recommends $53,068,000,
$3,154,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget
request. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for
programs and activities according to the Administration's
request. The Committee notes that the increase for this account
in the budget request and recommendation is based on a three-
year rolling average of collections, in accordance with the
authorizing statute.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2011................................... $39,920,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 39,651,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 35,928,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -3,992,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -3,723,000
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 2012, the Committee recommends $35,928,000,
$3,992,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $3,723,000 below the
budget request. Within this amount, the Committee provides
funding for programs and activities proportionate to the
Administration's request.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Appropriation, 2011................................... $61,078,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 60,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 60,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -1,078,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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 2012, the Committee recommends
$60,000,000, $1,078,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same as
the budget request.
The Committee previously has directed the Administration to
produce a five-year plan that serves the public interest by
providing visibility into Reclamation's future plans and
spending. To date, Reclamation has failed to provide that plan
to the Committee. The Committee once again directs the
Administration to fulfill the Committee's request to provide an
adequate and useful five-year plan.
The Committee expects that the five-year plan will include
the following: (1) a funding scenario which reflects the
Administration's expenditure ceilings, including inflation for
the out-years; (2) a list of active projects, as defined by a
project receiving funding in the previous three years, for
which funding is not proposed in the plan; (3) a full
accounting of all rural water, Tribal water settlement, and
Title XVI projects that are currently authorized, the total
authorization, the balance to complete, and total
appropriations to date; (4) an estimate of the total cost of
extraordinary and emergency operation and maintenance to
address the backlog of project needs due to the aging of
Reclamation infrastructure; and, (5) an explanation of the
methodology used in determining the project allocations,
together with the direction provided to field offices in the
preparation of the five-year plan.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for
the purchase of passenger motor vehicles.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
The bill contains a provision regarding the circumstances
that the Bureau of Reclamation may reprogram funds.
The bill continues a provision regarding the San Luis Unit
and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
The bill contains a provision permanently rescinding
mandatory funds from the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
INTRODUCTION
Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department
of Energy programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability, 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 the Office of the
Administrator), Defense Environmental Cleanup, 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
$30,683,802,000, including a rescission of $241,332,000, as
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year
2012 to fund programs in its four primary mission areas:
science, energy, environment, and national security. The
overall Department of Energy budget request is $5,092,626,000
above fiscal year 2011 and includes significant increases to
renewable energy programs and national defense mission areas,
as well as to Science and the Loan Guarantee Program.
The Committee recommends a number of significant changes to
the fiscal year 2012 budget request, driven primarily by
budgetary realities and poor justification by the
Administration on its rationale for these proposed increases.
The mission of the Department of Energy remains crucial to the
nation's security, both in terms of the activities directly
related to the defense mission as well as our energy security.
The Department is also the primary supporter of energy-related
basic science research. The Committee has provided funds for
these crucial activities.
The total funding recommended for the Department of Energy
is $24,740,746,000, $850,430,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$5,943,056,000 below the budget request.
Major Committee Concerns
Over the past year, it has become clear that our nation's
financial pressures are forcing a reevaluation of the size and
role of government in society. Far from exempt from this
dynamic, the Department of Energy should be leading the
discussion. The Department is responsible for keeping our
nuclear stockpile safe and reliable, driving improvements in
our energy sector and supporting innovative research in the
basic sciences. Leadership at the Department of Energy has been
eager to put funding toward new ideas, but it has been less
able to articulate a strategic direction for the investment of
taxpayer dollars and build a national consensus on a way
forward. The fiscal year 2012 budget request is an example of
this problem. While it proposes billions of dollars in
additional ``clean energy'' research and development, it
provides little justification for these increases. At the same
time, the request proposes slashing investment into areas such
as Fossil Energy Research and Development which are critical to
our energy sector. The Committee urges the Department to take a
more proactive role in working with the Congress to develop a
consensus national energy policy.
In light of today's fiscal challenges, the Department must
confront longstanding management issues and make difficult
decisions to prioritize limited resources among its programs.
To more effectively use public funding, the Department must
minimize waste across the agency through management
improvements, elimination of underperforming or unnecessary
activities, and strong oversight of grant programs that are
susceptible to abuse. The Department must also use objective
metrics to guide its portfolio by putting systems in place that
measure the performance of its research and development
programs, and by directing funds towards programs that yield
the greatest results. The Department should seriously consider
offsetting any proposed new programs by eliminating
underperforming programs. This recommendation includes
requirements to help support such changes.
The United States faces an unprecedented global race to
lead tomorrow's energy sector. With scarce federal dollars
available, the Department must strategically invest its funds
to support areas, such as basic science, where the private
sector has little incentive to invest, and in high-performing
areas where benefits can be clearly shown. Other nations are
investing heavily in research, infrastructure and the use of
new energy sources to advance their global position as
innovators and manufacturers of the next generation of energy
technologies. While the United States has led the world in
research and entrepreneurial innovation for the better part of
the last century, the nation must continue investing wisely in
innovation and growing its pool of innovators in order to
continue this leadership and keep the next generation of
research, manufacturing and clean energy jobs in America. The
Department of Energy is entrusted to make these critical
investments and the Committee will continue to apply strong
oversight to ensure that the Department is a good steward of
public funding as it acts to meet the nation's energy
challenges, thereby assuring America's innovation leadership in
the 21st century.
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 has
reminded the Department of this constitutional provision during
budget hearings because of the repeated disregard for
congressional direction in the execution of appropriations law.
In previous years, the Department has on various occasions
ignored the clear intent of the Congress, seeking to satisfy
Administration desires rather than congressional mandates. This
was most apparent in the implementation of the Fiscal Year 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act, under which the Department
proposed to begin new programs never before justified to the
Congress, eliminate programs with strong, bi-partisan
congressional support, and otherwise proceed to fulfill
Administration desires at the expense of long-standing comity
between the branches. The Committee expects the Department to
support the full implementation of congressional direction, and
has included new provisions to ensure that any ambiguity
regarding Committee intent is eliminated.
For the first time, the Committee carries 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 level included in the table
detailing the Committee's recommendations for the Department of
Energy's various accounts. Further, for those activities
specified in the report which are below the level of the detail
table, no deviation from the specified levels shall be made by
the Department. The Committee also prohibits new starts not
funded by the Congress and includes other direction to improve
public oversight of the Department's actions.
Each year, the Congress specifies annual funding levels for
accounts, programs, and specific activities within the agency.
The Committee is concerned that the Department engages in
practices that contravene congressional direction for these
funding levels by regularly redirecting a percentage of program
budgets to other purposes. While law requires that 2.8 percent
of extramural research and development activities be redirected
to Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business
Technology Transfer grants, an additional portion of funding is
often siphoned off for activities that are not legally
required. The redirection of funds for audits and
Administration initiatives is of particular concern.
The Department charges the cost of Financial Statement and
Defense Contract Audit Agency audits to individual activities
within program offices. Further, many Department program
offices charge these costs to a small number of activities
that, in many cases, were appropriated at specific levels. For
example, audit costs for the entire $220,000,000 Biomass and
Biorefinery Systems program in fiscal year 2010 were charged to
the Algae subprogram, the only activity specified by the
Congress in the Biomass program. This distribution of audit
charges is arbitrary at best and appears at times to
intentionally contravene congressional direction. As audit
costs are part of program oversight, the Department is directed
to pay such costs entirely from program direction funding.
The Department also frequently funds Presidential,
Secretarial, and senior management initiatives by redirecting
funds away from purposes directed by the Congress. The
Department funds many of these Administration initiatives by
``taxing'' various programs that may or may not be related to
the initiative. This practice takes funding from purposes for
which they were appropriated, and the Department shall follow
congressional direction by only charging programs related to
the leadership initiatives they are funding.
The Committee is concerned with the Department's lack of
transparency and respect for congressional direction, and the
recommendation includes language within the Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy account, where the problem may be most
pervasive, requiring reporting on these practices within that
account.
FINANCIAL REPORTING
The Committee expects improved transparency in reporting
financial data for annual appropriations. The Department has
demonstrated increased transparency in reporting the execution
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, as well as other
focused efforts, such as exposing significant liabilities
arising from contractor-managed pension plans. Yet, the
Department cannot currently account for the status of each
fiscal year's annual appropriations at the project level. It
has difficulty producing timely execution data for appropriated
and apportioned funding. This does not support the Secretary's
commitment to transparency to the taxpayer and the Congress,
and leaves no way for the public to hold the Department
accountable for the progress of each year's funding. The
Committee directs the Department to move as quickly as possible
to improve its financial and accounting processes for annual
appropriations.
The Committee directs the Department to provide a monthly
Financial Balances Report to the Committee, with the first
delivered not later than 180 days following the enactment of
this Act. The report should provide, for each program at the
congressional control level as specified in the table in this
report detailing the Committee's recommendations for the
Department's various accounts, the following balances: total
available (prior and current year); unobligated; unobligated
but committed; and obligated, uncosted. To the extent possible,
data should be provided both in summary form and by the fiscal
year the funding was appropriated. Emergency funding, including
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, should be
displayed separately.
The Committee recognizes the Department of Energy's efforts
to produce a strategic plan for the agency in order to align
missions with strategies necessary to ensure our nation's
security and energy independence. Though this initiative was
delayed by over two years, the Committee will closely examine
the Department's adherence to this plan to ensure the
Department is able to plan and execute its budget in a way that
advances its long-term priorities.
To better support the attainment of long-term goals, the
Committee urges the Department to lay the groundwork for
financial policy and budgetary decisions by producing a
meaningful and comprehensive multi-year budget and presenting
it to Congress in the President's budget request. The
Department should look to the National Nuclear Security
Administration and the Department of Defense for models of
formulation and execution of multi-year budgets in order to
formulate its own budgetary estimates over a five-year planning
period. Upon 180 days after enactment, the Department shall
provide a report to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees on its progress in developing an actionable five-
year budget and describe the actions it has taken to prepare
its program offices to formulate their respective budgetary
priorities in that timeframe.
MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR SPENT FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE
The nation's nuclear spent fuel and defense waste currently
resides at over 100 sites in 39 states. While the Committee is
assured that this material is safe and secure where it is
currently stored, the tragic events in Japan highlight that it
is impossible to prepare for every exigency. Consolidation of
this material in a single site that provides enhanced safety
and security will improve public comfort with nuclear power,
reduce potential safety and security risk, and fulfill the
federal government's obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 to assume responsibility of spent fuel.
The will of the Congress, expressed through law, is that
this consolidation site is Yucca Mountain. The Administration
has unilaterally decided upon a path to close the Yucca
Mountain license application process, a decision which, if
allowed, would waste over two decades of study and a public
investment of over $15 billion, plus tens of billions in
additional fines and penalties. The Committee strongly opposes
the Administration's plans and includes funding in this
recommendation under ``Nuclear Waste Disposal'' and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to continue the license application.
Similarly, the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2011 includes $10,000,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to continue the license application. This fiscal year 2011
funding, and the fiscal year 2012 recommendation, shall not be
used to terminate the license application process, and this
recommendation includes a general provision to this effect.
This general provision also prohibits the Department or the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission from using funds in this Act for
activities that would irrevocably remove Yucca Mountain from
consideration as a potential repository in the future.
The scientific community and the public have now had two
years to understand the implications of the Administration's
actions to close Yucca Mountain. As time goes on, the extent of
the Administration's disregard for sound science and the
public's hard-earned dollars becomes clearer. Already, multiple
lawsuits in federal court have been filed against the
Administration on the policy itself. Additionally, utilities
have successfully sued the Administration for $2.2 billion in
damages because the government has failed to live up to its
obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Department
of Energy now estimates that taxpayers will have to pay nearly
$16.2 billion in damages by 2020, and an additional $500
million for each year after 2020 that the Department does not
fulfill its legal obligations.
The Administration's misguided policy is also adding to
requirements to the Department of Energy's budget and posing
risks to our national security. In March 2011 the Government
Accountability Office released a report showing that, in
addition to the tens of billions of dollars in liabilities, and
the more than $15 billion in lost investments, the
Administration's policy could result in nearly $1 billion in
additional storage costs incurred by the Department of Energy,
tens of millions of dollars in fines, and potential national
security implications if the naval reactors mission in Idaho is
put at risk.
Finally, the single document that could provide the
Administration with a scientific basis for its position had
been blocked from being released by political appointees at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, although all indications are
that the staff work necessary for the report had been completed
for months. Volume Three of the Safety Evaluation Report
Related to Disposal of High-level Radioactive Wastes in a
Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was due in late
2010. However, until recently the Administration had
successfully blocked its release with the explanation that
Yucca Mountain was no longer its policy position. Fortunately,
by majority vote the Commissioners at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission were able to overcome this partisan obstructionism,
and the full report has now been provided to key congressional
committees. Until that report is released to the public and its
findings can be incorporated into the national debate over
spent fuel, however, the taxpayer will receive virtually no
benefit from the $15 billion invested to date, and critical
information that has the potential to significantly move
forward this country's plans for spent nuclear fuel will be
lost.
Put simply, the Administration's anti-Yucca Mountain stance
has no scientific basis, is wasting billions of taxpayer
dollars, and may be illegal. The Committee rejects the
Administration's plans to shut down the Yucca Mountain license
application process and includes funds in the recommendation to
continue the process. Once the full merits of this site are
understood, and not before, the nation should determine whether
to move forward with full construction of the site.
Reporting Requirement: National Waste Repository Workforce
and Archiving Plan.--The Office of Nuclear Energy assumes the
Department's responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, as well as activities and staff involving the Yucca
Mountain project. Within 60 days of the enactment of this Act,
the Department shall submit a report on its plans to retain the
federal and contractor expertise on geological waste
repositories and archive all scientific documentation relating
to the project. This plan will help ensure the significant
public investment and the scientific knowledge gained from the
Yucca Mountain project will be available to serve future waste
repository efforts.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Science leadership, technology innovation, and the creation
of intellectual property have made the United States the
leading world economy for much of recent history. Amid daunting
energy challenges and intense global economic competition,
America's innovation engine is more critical than ever to the
nation's long-term economic strength and national security. The
Department's energy research and development programs help to
drive innovation and ensure the nation's leadership for future
generations.
And yet, another goal--reining in the record-high national
debt--is likewise critical to the nation's long-term economic
security, and the federal government cannot responsibly support
any programs with unbridled spending. While this bill provides
robust funding for core science and energy research programs
given overall fiscal constraints, funds are limited and the
Committee must ensure they are spent as effectively as
possible. Providing funding for its own sake does not serve the
American public or its national interests, and this year the
Committee begins transforming the Department's energy programs
to measure success not by dollars, but by innovation.
The Department of Energy and its laboratories grew out of
the Manhattan Project, a landmark research and development
initiative with the singular purpose of producing the first
atomic bomb. An extraordinary example of scientific achievement
and technical innovation, the Manhattan Project demanded strict
isolation from the public, focused on a single, measurable
outcome, and served a single customer: the federal national
defense organization. While much of the Department's current
form evolved from the culture, institutions and research
programs established during this war-time effort and its
aftermath, the agency's modern-day energy mission calls for
diverse, long-term efforts requiring intimate cooperation with
the private sector and integration with existing energy
infrastructure.
The Department's present-day energy challenges are
consequently distinct from those faced 70 years ago, and the
research and institutional models inherited from those seminal
years must evolve accordingly. While the Department's original
goal was singular, today's goals are many. And while the
original accomplishments were easily measured, today's are more
subtle and difficult to quantify. The Department must therefore
choose programs and research models that most effectively lead
to private sector innovation in this new context--an ongoing
task that will require measurement of program performance to
ensure the optimal mix of research models, and performance
measurement of individual projects to ensure those models are
used effectively. Only unprecedented levels of transparency,
measurement, and accountability can ensure the effective use of
limited federal funding. This bill takes that responsibility
seriously by requiring new program measurement requirements,
the use of milestones and performance targets, and the
termination of underperforming projects.
Performance Measurement of New Research Models.--The
Committee has long supported research and development
activities at the national laboratories, in single-investigator
research groups, and through industry grants funded through the
Department's basic and applied energy research and development
programs. In the past several years, the Department proposed
several novel research models, including the BioEnergy Research
Centers (BRCs), Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs), the
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) and Energy
Innovation Hubs. The Committee has supported these new research
initiatives with caution, noting the merits of trying promising
new models but cautioning that it is prudent and fiscally
responsible to frame this process as trial experimentation. The
Department cannot, for example, greatly expand the number of
EFRCs beyond the initial 46 awarded in 2009 until it sees
demonstrated success from these centers.
The unbiased assessment of each new research model is
essential to inform good funding decisions in future years, and
the Department must put in place sufficient oversight and
performance measurement plans from the outset. More than simply
measuring whether these programs meet superficial timeline
milestones, the Department must understand the data collection
necessary to determine whether it is achieving superior results
through each new program compared to the results it could
achieve through other uses of funds. While the Committee has
urged such oversight, the Department has delivered no plan
laying out how it will define or measure success for each new
program. To begin addressing this troubling shortcoming, the
report directs the Department to establish performance targets
and to report on current performance and success rates across
many of these new research areas. These performance targets
will serve as the benchmark for evaluation as the Committee
determines which programs to continue and which to terminate in
future years.
For example, for each Energy Innovation Hub funded in this
bill, the Committee requires targets and status reports for
future fiscal years that will inform evaluations of each Hub
and of the Hub model at-large. For the BioEnergy Research
Centers and Energy Frontier Research Centers, the Committee
requires similar targets to aid in their upcoming five-year
evaluations at the end of fiscal years 2012 and 2013,
respectively. For ARPA-E, the Committee requires a report on
the performance of each award in order to better understand
success rates for a program that specifically funds high-risk
projects. These reports will be instrumental in guiding the
Department and the Committee towards choosing the programs that
best use limited taxpayer funds.
Transparency and Accountability.--Regardless of the
eventual success or failure of the Energy Innovation Hub and
EFRC models, they have one inherent advantage over incumbent
research models used within the science and applied research
programs: a higher level of transparency making clear the
award, recipient, term length, and purpose of each center.
Basic Energy Science research serves as a useful case
study. Of the $854.7 million proposed in the fiscal year 2012
request for Basic Energy Science research, more than 81 percent
is neither for Hubs nor EFRCs, but for research grants of
assorted sizes and types at a variety of institutions. While
the Committee strongly supports the Basic Energy Sciences
research areas, it is difficult to measure the performance of
these activities and to understand their demands on out-year
funding. As a first step towards increased accountability
within that program, this report directs the Department to
perform an evaluation of Basic Energy Science research
activities and to terminate the lowest-performing awards. The
Committee urges the Department to propose means by which it can
further increase the transparency of these activities and hold
them accountable for high performance.
Limited-Term Awards.--The BioEnergy Research Centers,
Energy Frontier Research Centers and Energy Innovation Hubs
were all granted as five-year initial awards. The Committee
reiterates that these awards were not intended to create
permanent federally-funded research centers, but rather were
intended to be limited-term efforts with discrete goals. Only
the most successful centers should be renewed, and any
ineffective centers should be terminated as soon as possible.
The Committee's requirements provided in this bill establishing
research targets and requiring performance assessments will
help in those evaluations when these research centers reach the
end of their awards over the next three fiscal years.
Quadrennial Technology Review.--In response to the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
report, ``Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy
Technologies Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy,'' the
Department has initiated a Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR).
The Committee believes the Department is responsible for
guiding the policy, regulatory, and technological choices
needed to change our energy production, distribution, and
consumption to meet long-term economic, environmental, and
security goals. The Committee encourages the Department to
include in the QTR an assessment of how its investments in
science and applied energy research and development programs
are serving that responsibility and will influence energy
prices and supplies consistent with national goals. The QTR
should also include an assessment of policy, regulatory,
technological, and economic barriers that inhibit meeting our
national energy goals.
Mortgaging Future-Year Funds.--The Committee remains
concerned that the Department's budgeting practices provide
little flexibility to respond to change. It has become a
regular practice for the Department's energy programs to
provide partial funding in each fiscal year for multi-year
awards. This approach of mortgaging future fiscal year funding
ties up program budgets with commitments for past awards, and
often leaves only a small percentage of each program's budget
for new awards.
In fiscal year 2012, for example, the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy must pay nearly $750 million in
commitments to prior awards, leaving less than 43 percent of
total funding in fiscal year 2012 for new awards and national
laboratory activities. Within this account, the Geothermal
Technologies program has committed $62,510,000 in fiscal year
2012--a staggering 140 percent of its fiscal year 2010
appropriation--to pay past awards. At the fiscal year 2012
level of $38,000,000, the Geothermal Technologies program has
essentially forced itself to pause for nearly two years while
it pays down its past commitments, hampering its ability to
adjust to changing needs and market conditions. Further, the
Department announced the ``L Prize'' competition for solid
state lighting in 2008 without allocating funds to support it.
While program managers may feel such an action allowed them to
administer the prize competition at no cost, the announcement
spurred private sector investment and created a real commitment
to fund the prize in future years.
While both the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
and the Office of Nuclear Energy fully fund all multi-year
awards and therefore avoid mortgaging out-year funds, the
practice of mortgaging future funds extends to most of the
Department's energy research programs. Nearly 70 percent of the
Office of Fossil Energy's fiscal year 2012 request is spoken
for by commitments to past awards, and only 7 percent of the
Office of Science's fiscal year 2012 request of $5,416,114,000
is free for new competitive awards. Program managers may feel
that the practice of partially funded multi-year awards allows
them to fund more activities within a given annual budget, but
the Committee believes this practice assumes funds that simply
do not exist. At best, partial funding of awards can severely
limit the Department's flexibility to adjust its programs from
year to year, and at worst it creates commitments in future
years that the Department cannot guarantee.
To end this practice, maintain the Department's
credibility, increase the energy programs' transparency and
flexibility, and improve the financial posture of the
Department, the recommendation includes a general provision
prohibiting any new projects, programs, or activities within
the Department's energy accounts that are not fully funded by
the Congress. An exception is provided for major capital
projects. The Department overall is prohibited from starting
any new projects not funded by the Congress. Finally, the
recommendation includes new reporting requirements to enable
the Department to improve its transparency to the American
taxpayer.
CONTRACT COMPETITION
In fiscal year 2004 the Congress mandated the competition
of all management and operating contracts, some of which had
not been competed in over 50 years. The Committee continues to
believe that competition of contracts is in the national
interest where there is expressed interest on the part of
private companies, non-profits or universities. While the
Committee does not support competition simply for competition's
sake, the Department seems to have a built-in bias toward
extending contracts rather than opening them to competition.
The accompanying bill does not mandate competition;
however, the Department is directed to report to the Committees
on Appropriations at least 60 days before the award and 10 days
prior to announcement of a non-competitive management and
operating contract. In such a case, the Secretary shall submit
a report notifying the Committees of such an award and setting
forth, in detail, the substantive reasons competition is not in
the national interest.
The Committee is also concerned with the NNSA's plans to
combine the management and operating contracts at Y-12 and
Pantex. In order to build support for this consolidation, the
NNSA must be able to substantiate the nearly $900 million it
has claimed would be saved by merging the two contracts. To
date, it has been unable to do so, and recently the
Governmental Accountability Office informed the Committee that
it has been largely unable to validate the claimed savings.
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and
scholarship programs in fiscal year 2012 unless they appeared
in the fiscal year 2012 congressional budget request
justification documents and are supported in this bill. Any new
or ongoing such programs that the Department wishes to fund in
fiscal year 2013 must be detailed in the fiscal year 2013
budget request documents.
Further, the Department is directed to report to the
Committee, not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act,
a comprehensive listing of educational activities at the
Department funded with fiscal year 2012 appropriations,
including all fellowships, scholarships, workforce training
programs, and primary and secondary school activities. For each
activity, the report shall include the fiscal year 2012 funding
level, purpose, outyear mortgages, and Department account and
program within which the activity resides.
DEPARTMENTAL PENSION LIABILITIES
While the Department has taken laudable steps to increase
the transparency of its contractor employee defined benefit
pension plans, the Committee remains concerned by the limited
steps the Department has taken to mitigate the rising costs of
these plans and the wide variability in benefits still
permitted across the different DOE sites. Reform must be
vigorously pursued to contain the continued growth in base
operating costs and prevent the erosion of funding available to
support core activities.
The Department also must do more to properly budget for
these costs. While the cost of each plan will always be an
estimate based on economic and financial assumptions, the
Department has demonstrated weak performance in estimating its
needs for the budget year. In fiscal year 2010, the Department
originally projected its total pensions cost would be
$1,164,151,000, but ended up only needing $526,689,000 to meet
its obligations. In fiscal year 2011, the costs were estimated
to be $1,129,046,000, yet now it appears only $903,200,000 will
be needed, even after allowing some plans to pay above the
minimum requirements.
The Committee is concerned that valuable taxpayer dollars
are being requested for costs that do not materialize. With
budgets trending downwards, available funding must be used to
protect priorities where they provide the greatest benefit to
the taxpayer. Therefore, the Committee will not support
requests for funding in excess of the requirements under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and related
laws. In order to ensure the Department is not budgeting for
more than is required, the Department is directed to report the
status of each contractor defined benefit pension plan in its
budget request, including the percentage that each plan is
funded at the time of the budget submission and the anticipated
funding level the request will provide.
MANAGEMENT OF DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS
The Committee has committed to provide the necessary
investment in our stockpile and infrastructure to ensure our
national defense requirements are fully met and the
recommendation fulfills this commitment. Given budget
realities, however, the Committee is concerned by the major
increases in the base operating costs of the NNSA's activities
coupled with the large investments the NNSA needs to provide
enhanced capabilities. These enhancements are driven by new
defense requirements established by the Department of Defense.
Both the Department of Defense and the NNSA must understand
that Committee support for additional investments will depend
on increased insight into Administration efforts to restrain
costs while ensuring requirements are properly determined, and
then met.
New requirements have been set both by official, public
documents such as the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) report
as well as other internal planning processes. The NPR, for
instance, contained some new requirements for full scope life
extension activities that will require extensive development of
new technologies to support warhead enhancements, such as those
for safety, security and maintainability, as well as larger,
more capable production facilities which support uranium and
plutonium operations. Internally, the desire to minimize
maintenance requirements of deployed nuclear weapons is driving
the need to design a new generation of gas transfer systems,
for which DOE will incur significant costs to produce higher
levels of tritium. Similarly, the pursuit of an expensive
acquisition program to replace the OHIO-Class ballistic missile
submarine drives DOE's requirements to undertake an aggressive
$1.2 billion research and development effort by Naval Reactors
to produce a life of the ship core, as well as another $1.2
billion investment to demonstrate the design on DOE's prototype
reactors. Internally, the Navy's aircraft carrier defueling
schedule is driving a need for large scale investments in DOE's
spent fuel infrastructure at Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho.
The Committee is unclear to what extent the Department of
Defense understands the full costs of these requirements before
they are set. As with any major defense investment, the
Administration should be able to demonstrate that requirements
are only set with full consideration of the resource
implications of meeting those requirements. Failure to consider
these implications could have serious ramifications to the
health of the overall enterprise. The cost to add technology
enhancements to warheads undergoing life extension activities,
such as those for safety, security and maintainability, must
not force out all available funding to maintain the rest of the
stockpile. Similarly, the cost to construct the two new nuclear
facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Y-12
National Security Complex must not force out all available
funding to maintain the rest of the infrastructure. As costs
increase for construction projects, less money will be
available for life extension programs. The converse is also
true.
The Department must show leadership to ensure that this
type of analysis is incorporated into DOE-DOD joint decision-
making, particularly at the pivotal moment when decisions are
being made to determine the ultimate scope of those
requirements. Process improvements are hampered by the dearth
of available cost data for NNSA activities. The NNSA's budget
structure is excessively complex and DOE's financial management
systems do not collect information on the costs it incurs.
Without accurate data on the full cost of activities, there can
be no reliable way to estimate new costs. The Committee
recommendation takes immediate action to simplify cost
accounting for individual defense requirements within NNSA
accounts and to make these costs more transparent to external
oversight.
The rising cost of the NNSA's programmatic activities comes
at an exceptionally difficult time, when our nation's economic
crisis is forcing spending reductions across all areas of
government. The only plausible way to build capabilities while
still meeting basic defense needs in a constrained budget
environment is to undertake aggressive cost reduction efforts,
and a more detailed understanding of the true costs will
facilitate the implementation of these cost reduction
strategies. The Committee cannot afford to waste valuable
taxpayer funding on management inefficiencies, and the
importance of modernization argues firmly for concrete
improvements in the way the NNSA does business. The Committee
directs the NNSA to seek qualitative improvements in the
processes for determining the overall requirements governed
jointly by the Department of Defense and the Department of
Energy through the Nuclear Weapons Council. It is incumbent
upon the experts at the NNSA to provide a range of options
which would meet defense requirements and to ensure that a
range of alternatives are considered, taking into account the
DOE resource implications of each alternative.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES
The Committee requires the Department to inform the
Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution
and funding is required during the fiscal year. For the first
time, the Department's reprogramming requirements are detailed
in statute. To assist the Department in this effort, the
following guidance is provided for programs and activities
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or
a departure of $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less,
from a program, project, or activity, whichever is the most
specific, included 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 identified
to another project or a change of $2,000,000 or 10 percent,
whichever is less, in the scope of an approved project.
Further, for those activities specified in the report which are
below the level of the detail table, no deviation from the
specified levels shall be made by the Department.
Criteria for reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if
delay of the project or the activity until the next
appropriations year would result in a detrimental impact to an
agency program or priority. A reprogramming may also be
considered if the Department can show that significant cost
savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere
convenience or preference should not be factors for
consideration. A reprogramming may not be employed to initiate
new programs, 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.--The Committee has
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines.
In recognition of the security missions of the Department, the
legislative provision allows the Secretary and the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
to jointly waive the reprogramming restriction by certifying to
the Committees on Appropriations it is in the nation's security
interest to do so. Any reallocation of new or prior-year budget
authority must be submitted to the Committees in writing and
may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees on
Appropriations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy
programs in fiscal year 2012 are described in the following
sections. A detailed funding table which determines
reprogramming baselines is included at the end of this title.
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Appropriation, 2011................................... $1,795,641,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 3,200,053,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 1,304,636,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -491,005,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -1,895,417,000
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs include
research, development, demonstration and deployment activities
advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies,
as well as federal energy assistance programs. Renewable energy
research, development, demonstration and deployment activities
include biomass and biorefinery systems, geothermal technology,
hydrogen and fuel cell technology, water power, solar energy,
and wind energy technologies. Energy efficiency activities
include reducing the energy consumption of vehicle, building
and industrial technologies, and the Federal Energy Management
Program. Federal energy assistance programs include
weatherization assistance, state energy programs, the
international renewable energy program, and tribal energy
activities.
The Committee recommends a total of $1,304,636,000 for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $491,005,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $1,895,417,000 below the budget request.
After accounting for a one-time rescission of $30,000,000 in
fiscal year 2011 and the use of $26,364,000 in prior-year
balances in this bill, the recommendation is $494,641,000 below
fiscal year 2011.
Reporting Requirement.--It has come to the Committee's
attention that a significant fraction of the funding directed
in previous appropriations reports to specified Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy activities has been diverted by
Department management to other purposes in recent years. In
some cases, as much as 12 percent of the funding directed by
the Congress for an activity has been diverted. While 2.8
percent of funding for research and development activities is
redirected by law to Small Business Innovation Research and
Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) grants, any
additional redirection of funds to overhead or other purposes
contravenes congressional direction. The Department is
therefore directed to report to the Committee, not later than
March 1, 2012, for each funding level directed in this report
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy activities: (1) the
exact quantity of funds allocated by the Department in fiscal
year 2012 for the activity, and (2) an accounting of any
differences between the funding levels specified by the
Congress and amounts allocated by the Department, including
amounts and purposes of funds redirected to other activities.
Use of prior-year balances.--The Department is directed to
use $26,364,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the
budget request.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT
The Committee recommends $1,263,000,000 for energy
efficiency and renewable energy research, development,
demonstration, and deployment programs, $331,341,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $1,569,619,000 below the budget request.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.--The Hydrogen and Fuel
Cell Technologies program advances technologies that use fuel
cells and hydrogen energy carriers for both transportation and
stationary purposes. The Committee recommends $91,450,000,
$6,550,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $9,000,000 below the
budget request.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems RD&D.--Along with electric,
fuel-cell, and natural gas vehicles, biofuels grown from non-
food crops or algae are one of a small handful of means by
which the nation can lower its dependence on imported oil in
the long run. The Biomass and Biorefinery Systems RD&D program
develops and demonstrates technologies to convert biomass crops
to fuels, chemicals, heat and power. The Committee recommends
$150,000,000 for Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D,
$32,695,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $190,500,000 below the
budget request.
Increased demand by the energy sector for food crops can
put upward pressure on crop prices, disrupting other industries
and increasing food prices domestically and abroad. The
Department is directed to conduct only research, development,
and demonstration activities advancing technologies that
produce fuels and electricity from biomass and crops that could
not otherwise be used as food. The Committee supports efforts
to develop cellulosic feedstocks and directs the Department to
consider a broad portfolio of options, including biofuels
sources such as the non-food components of biomass sorghum. As
part of this effort, the Committee encourages the Department to
continue research, development, testing, and evaluation to
improve the biomass quantity and quality of bioenergy grasses
in order to efficiently, sustainably, and cost-effectively
develop lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels.
The Committee also supports efforts to develop other
advanced feedstocks, such as algae, that can be cultivated on
marginal land or other unconventional locations. The Committee
encourages the Department to explore approaches and
technologies for the development of renewable power and fuels
from a real-world mixture of household and urban waste, such as
yard waste, and rural waste, such as agricultural residues.
The budget request proposes $150,000,000 to fund the first
cellulosic biofuels reverse auction administered by the
Department of Energy. The Committee is concerned that this
program would provide production subsidies to already-completed
or fully-funded biorefinery facilities--more than 80 percent of
which were built with Department of Energy grants. Further,
nearly 30 percent of eligible production capacity would use
existing competitive technologies that are neither advanced nor
use cellulosic feedstock. As such, the auction would be
unlikely to advance biofuel technologies or make them more
competitive in the long run, and could risk prematurely forcing
an immature product into the market. Further, without advancing
biofuel technologies, a per-barrel subsidy such as the reverse
auction would only make a lasting difference in petroleum
consumption with ever-increasing spending by the Department in
future years. The proposed program therefore would be both
ineffective and fiscally unsustainable, and the recommendation
includes no funds for the cellulosic biofuels reverse auction.
Solar Energy.--The Solar Energy program funds applied
research, development, and demonstration of both photovoltaic
and concentrating solar technologies to reduce the cost of
solar power to economically competitive levels. The Committee
recommends $166,143,000 for Solar Energy, $97,357,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $290,857,000 below the budget request.
The Committee supports the Department's existing solar
energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment
activities. The Committee encourages the Department to include
in these efforts disruptive solar energy utilization
technologies, fabrication methods that yield ultra-low cost
solar cells, technologies for ultra-high efficiency solar
cells, technologies designed to simulate the operation of solar
cells, and other methods to yield advanced science and
engineering approaches to solar cells.
The recommendation includes no funding for Solar
Demonstration Zone projects, as the Department has adequate
facilities at its existing laboratories to test novel
concentrating solar power configurations and has demonstrated
its ability to fund large concentrating solar power and other
demonstration projects without limiting itself to using a pre-
determined demonstration site. Further, if demonstration
projects are identified that are compellingly innovative and
too risky for the private sector investment alone, they should
be openly competed to more than one eligible site.
The Committee is aware of the significant cost and
efficiency advantages solar films can provide to thin film and
crystalline silicon modules, and encourages the Department to
expand the funding of solar films research and development to
support the development of a cross-cutting advanced solar films
program to improve the cost-effectiveness of solar
technologies.
Wind Energy.--The Wind Energy program funds research and
development to improve the reliability and decrease the cost of
wind power. The Committee recommends $76,000,000 for Wind
Energy, $4,000,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $50,859,000 below
the budget request.
To date, the Department has focused primarily on land-based
wind power while devoting very little funding to improve
offshore systems. The United States has in excess of 40
gigawatts of land-based wind power, but off-shore wind
generation has not been widely demonstrated and represents an
untapped and potentially large energy source. As such, the
Committee supports a balanced program seeking to improve both
land-based and off-shore systems and supports the Department's
request to increase funds for offshore wind research and
development. Further, offshore wind farms in deeper waters
avoid local and commercial impacts possible in areas closer to
shorelines, and the Committee encourages the Department to
focus on deepwater wind technologies that are currently too
expensive for widespread deployment.
Any demonstration projects should be openly competed to all
interested locations, and shall be substantially more
technically advanced than other projects funded by the private
sector. Prior to announcing an award for a demonstration
project, the Department shall communicate to the Committee the
specific technical merits of the selected project that
differentiate it from the other applicants and that make it too
risky to be supported by private sector funding alone.
Geothermal Technology.--Ground heat is a potentially large
source of domestic energy that could be broadly tapped for
power generation, heating, and cooling. The Committee
recommends $38,000,000 for geothermal technology, $3,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $63,535,000 below the budget request.
The U.S. Geological Survey has identified more than 120,000
megawatts of untapped potential from low-temperature geothermal
resources. The Committee directs the Department to continue
advancing technologies that can exploit this vast resource
through continued research and development in the Low
Temperature and Co-Produced Resources Program.
The Department has indicated that partial awards for multi-
year grants in past years have committed the Geothermal
Technologies program to $62,510,000 of commitments in fiscal
year 2012. Given that the program's funding level was
$44,000,000 and $38,003,000 in fiscal years 2010 and 2011,
respectively, the Committee is concerned that the Department
has severely overcommitted itself with awards that assumed
future funding levels well above its current level.
This and all energy research and development programs at
the Department would be well-served by adjusting grants and
activities each year to match the evolving technology
landscape--and could do so only by minimizing mortgages on
future year funds. However, if the Department commits future-
year funding, the program must, first and foremost, meet those
past commitments. The Committee therefore directs the
Department to use Geothermal Technologies fiscal year 2012
funds to only pay mortgages on past awards. The program may not
announce new funding opportunities until its remaining
mortgages for future years are less than half of the overall
appropriation it receives in fiscal year 2012.
Water Power.--The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for
Water Power research and development, $20,000,000 above fiscal
year 2011 and $11,500,000 above the budget request, to include
$25,000,000 for marine and hydrokinetic research, development,
and demonstration, and $25,000,000 for conventional hydropower
research and development.
The Committee continues to encourage the Department's
research, development and demonstration of marine and
hydrokinetic renewable energy systems. These nascent
technologies are largely experimental, and the Department
should support American industry and laboratories as they
compete in this rapidly evolving and high-risk market.
The budget request also proposes to devote roughly half of
the Water Power program to conventional hydropower, including
the deployment of higher-efficiency turbines and installation
of turbines at unpowered dams. The Committee strongly supports
better usage of our hydropower resources at existing facilities
and dams. However, the entities that own these facilities--the
Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and private
sector entities--should be responsible for making these
investments, and this recommendation includes funds for the
Corps and the Bureau for these activities. The Committee
directs no funds to the deployment of turbine upgrades or
efficiency upgrades by the Department of Energy at existing
hydropower facilities, thereby keeping the program consistent
with the Department's core mandate to develop and advance new
energy science and technologies.
Vehicle Technologies.--Transportation accounts for
approximately two-thirds of the petroleum used in the United
States, and the Vehicle Technologies program aims to lower this
critical sector's dependence on imported oil through
advancements that increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles and
develop new vehicles not reliant on petroleum-based fuels. The
Committee recommends $254,000,000 for Vehicle Technologies,
$46,000,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $334,003,000 below the
budget request.
The budget request proposes $229,000,000 for Vehicle
Technologies Deployment, including more than $200,000,000 for
new activities to be focused entirely on electric vehicle
deployment through local and state grants. The Department
proposes to use 75 percent of the proposed budget to fund
charging points in public, commercial, and residential
locations. Within today's federal budgetary constraints, the
vast majority of charging points must ultimately be funded by
municipalities, customers, and the private sector. Further,
utilities, automobile manufacturers, and other businesses are
actively experimenting with a variety of policies and business
models in the rapidly evolving electric vehicle infrastructure
landscape. As such, a federal injection of funding for charging
points risks disrupting this ongoing experimentation and may
crowd out businesses marketing to new or prospective drivers of
electrified vehicles. The Committee, however, recognizes that
significant policy and procedural barriers exist at the state,
utility regulator, and local levels that can slow or prevent
the purchase of electric vehicles and the installation of
charging points.
The Committee therefore recommends $26,510,000 for Vehicle
Technologies Deployment, of which no funding is provided for
charging points. The Committee instead recommends up to
$3,000,000 from available funds for the Department to
commission the National Academies to conduct a study, with
input from state utility commissions, electric utilities,
automobile manufacturers, selected local governments with
recent electric vehicle infrastructure experience, and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to identify the market
barriers slowing the purchase of electric vehicles and
hindering the deployment of supporting infrastructure. The
report shall recommend what roles, if any, should be played by
the federal government to mitigate those barriers, and shall
identify what federal agencies, including the Department of
Energy, would be most effective in those roles. Finally, the
study shall identify how the Department can best utilize the
data on electric vehicle usage already being collected by the
Department.
Medium- and heavy-duty trucks consume roughly one-fifth of
transportation fuels in the United States, and increasing the
efficiency of these vehicles can lower the costs of land-based
freight and the industries that depend on it, while greatly
reducing the nation's dependence on imported oil. The Committee
is concerned the Department's budget request proposes to
terminate or delay commitments to grants for the SuperTruck
program, which focuses on truck efficiency. The Committee
supports the termination of underperforming grants that are
failing to meet targets, as continued investment in such
projects wastes taxpayer dollars. However, the Department has
not pointed to any level of underperformance by grantees within
the SuperTruck program, but instead the proposed termination
seems to be an arbitrary withdrawal from commitments to make
room for the Department's political and policy priorities of
the day. If the Department continues to mortgage large amounts
of future year appropriations--which can hamper the agency's
ability to adjust its policy priorities--it should be prepared
to meet those past financial commitments if projects continue
to meet performance goals. Further, the Department should be
prepared to terminate failing projects with due cause. If it
determines projects are underperforming, the Department should
clearly explain deficiencies to grantees. Consistent with this
policy, the Committee expects that the Department will meet
commitments to prior awards within the SuperTruck program, as
it has not communicated any evidence of failure to meet
performance targets.
The recommendation includes $28,244,000 for Lightweight
Materials Technology, $2,000,000 above the budget request, to
support activities that advance lightweight materials,
including carbon composites and other materials. Innovations in
lightweight materials can increase the efficiency for all
vehicle types, including electric drive vehicles and those
powered by petroleum-based fuels, biofuels, and hydrogen fuels.
Building Technologies.--Buildings consume more than 40
percent of energy nationwide, and the Building Technologies
program seeks to reduce energy consumption by increasing the
efficiency of building systems as well as the appliances and
devices used within them. The Committee recommends $150,000,000
for Building Technologies, $60,500,000 below fiscal year 2011
and $320,700,000 below the request.
The recommendation includes $24,300,000, the same as the
request, for the third year of the Energy Efficient Building
Systems Design Energy Innovation Hub. The Department is
directed to deliver to the Committee, not later than 60 days
after enactment of this Act, a report detailing: the current
status of the Hub, including number of employees and status of
the Hub's final offices and other facilities; all milestones
originally set forth for the Hub, including those for the end
of fiscal years 2010 and 2011; the Hub's current performance in
meeting those milestones; the Hub's milestones for fiscal years
2012, 2013 and 2014; and the specific milestones and
performance criteria that the Hub must meet in order to be
considered for a second five-year term.
The recommendation includes no funds for the Race to the
Green grant program.
The recommendation includes $25,832,000 for lighting
research and development, the same as the budget request, to
continue advancing solid state lighting technologies. While
these high-efficiency lighting options are still too expensive
to compete in the general lighting market, solid state lighting
has the potential to substantially reduce energy consumption
from lighting while cutting energy bills for consumers and
businesses. In its fiscal year 2010 report, the Committee
encouraged the Department to fund research aiming to lower
manufacturing costs, and the Committee continues to support
this research in conjunction with core technology and product
development research within this program.
The Department has previously announced the 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 solid state
general purpose light bulbs meeting various technical
requirements. While private sector investment has been
committed as a result of this announcement, the Department has
not, to date, allocated funding for this prize nor has it
requested funding in the fiscal year 2010, 2011, or 2012 budget
requests. The Committee strongly opposes the Department
announcing funding opportunities when those funds have not yet
been made available by the Congress. In the case of the L
Prize, the Department risks damaging its credibility and
misleading the private sector if an entrant qualifies for the
prize and the Department cannot pay the full implied award due
to a lack of advanced allocation of funding. To prevent this
practice in the future, the Committee includes a general
provision in this bill prohibiting announcements in advance of
appropriations. To ensure that the Department meets commitments
already promised for the L Prize, the Committee recommendation
includes $10,000,000, from within available Building
Technologies funds and in addition to funds recommended for
lighting research and development, for the Bright Tomorrow
Lighting Prize to fund previously-announced prizes for
competitions specified in section 655 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
The Committee supports ongoing Solar Heating and Cooling
research and development activities within the Building
Technologies program. These technologies are among the most
clean, reliable, and cost-effective technologies that can be
used to reduce utility bills and energy consumption for homes
and businesses.
The Committee is concerned that the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy does not have a coherent
program to conduct research, development, and demonstration of
geothermal heat pumps. The Committee directs the Department to
consider and develop a strategic plan to develop innovative
geothermal heat pump technologies; promote their use in both
residential and commercial applications; advise the Assistant
Secretary on policy matters that affect consumers and
manufacturers of geothermal heat pumps; receive, analyze,
collect, and disseminate publicly available data and
information; and carry out other applicable responsibilities.
The Department is to report back within 180 days of enactment
of this Act on its progress.
Industrial Technologies.--The Industrial Technologies
program funds research and development to increase the
efficiency of industrial processes across a variety of
industries. The Committee recommends $96,000,000, $12,241,000
below fiscal year 2011 and $223,784,000 below the budget
request.
The recommendation includes $34,000,000 for Next Generation
Materials, $66,784,000 below the request.
Within available funds for Next Generation Materials, the
recommendation includes $20,000,000 for the Energy Innovation
Hub for Critical Materials, the same as the budget request.
Recognizing the criticality of rare earth materials in clean
energy technologies such as wind power, electric vehicles, and
energy efficient lighting, the Committee urges the Hub to, in
part, work towards advancing and rebuilding a rare earth
materials supply chain within the United States that includes
the production of rare earth minerals, oxides, metals, alloys,
and permanent magnets. The Department is directed to deliver to
the Committee, not later than 90 days after enactment of this
Act, a report detailing: a timeline for selecting an awardee;
draft organizational and research milestones for the end of
fiscal years 2012 through 2016; and specific criteria the Hub
must meet to be considered for extension beyond the initial
five year term. The report must also identify how the Hub will
work with the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-
E) to ensure work on critical materials between the two
programs is not redundant if ARPA-E chooses to issue awards in
this area.
The recommendation includes $44,205,000 for Next Generation
Manufacturing Processes, $84,795,000 below the request. Within
available funds, the recommendation includes not less than
$4,205,000 for improvements in production in the steel
industry.
The Committee is concerned that the reorganization of the
Industrial Technologies program will negatively impact Combined
Heat and Power activities, and the Committee urges the
Department to continue support for this important program. The
recommendation for Next Generation Manufacturing Processes
includes $25,000,000 for Combined Heat and Power, the same as
the budget request, of which no less than one-fourth of the
funding is for research and development activities for small-
scale systems that can be used in residential and small
commercial settings.
With nearly three-quarters of industrial energy use
consumed by fuel-fired systems tied to either steam systems or
process heating equipment, the Department is encouraged to
continue to look into improvements in mechanical insulation.
Advances in this area have the potential to yield significant
energy savings for the industrial and commercial segments.
The recommendation includes $17,795,000 for Industrial
Technical Assistance, $57,205,000 below the request.
While developing innovative manufacturing techniques for
energy technologies is critical for the nation to compete in
the rapidly evolving energy sector, the Department's proposed
Manufacturing Energy Systems program is redundant with
manufacturing research and development activities across the
Department's technology-specific programs. Energy sector
manufacturing spans a broad spectrum of often-unrelated
technologies and manufacturing processes, and it is not evident
that a single program could be effective in its attempt to
cover that spectrum. Each Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy program houses expertise on its technology area and is
more capable of administering manufacturing research and
development programs than one centralized manufacturing program
would be. The Department has not provided sufficient
information to address these concerns, nor has it provided
sufficient evidence of planning to assure the Committee that
funds would be used well. The recommendation includes no
funding for Manufacturing Energy Systems, and the Committee
continues to encourage the Department to invest in
manufacturing research and development within each Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy program.
Federal Energy Management Program.--The Federal Energy
Management Program seeks to mitigate energy costs of the
federal government by assisting federal agencies in reducing
their energy usage. The Committee recommends $30,000,000,
$402,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $3,072,000 below the budget
request.
Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$26,407,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Facilities and Infrastructure, $24,593,000 below fiscal year
2011 and the same as the budget request.
Program Direction.--Program Direction provides funding for
Department staff to manage and oversee the Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy programs. The Committee recommends
$110,000,000 for program direction, $60,000,000 below fiscal
year 2011 and $66,605,000 below the budget request.
Strategic Programs.--The Committee recommends $25,000,000
for Strategic Programs, formerly named Program Support,
$7,000,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $28,204,000 below the
budget request. The recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the
International program, $2,000,000 below the budget request, to
include $2,000,000 for the U.S.-Israel energy cooperative
agreement.
FEDERAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends a total of $68,000,000 for federal
energy assistance programs, $163,300,000 below fiscal year 2011
and $325,798,000 below the budget request.
Weatherization Assistance.--The Committee recommends
$33,000,000 for the Weatherization Assistance Program,
$141,300,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $287,000,000 below the
budget request, of which $3,000,000 is for training and
technical assistance.
At current rates of spending, the Weatherization Assistance
Program will have an estimated $1.5 billion in unspent funding
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
for use in fiscal year 2012. Recognizing that some states will
have spent all ARRA funds by the beginning of fiscal year 2012
while others will have remaining ARRA funds through much or all
of the fiscal year, the recommendation includes statutory
language allowing the Secretary to waive the allocation formula
in order to adjust its distribution of funds in fiscal year
2012. In the event that the Secretary executes this waiver, the
Department is directed to (1) use the existing weatherization
formula as a baseline for calculating allocations; (2) reduce
the allocation for states that have sufficient ARRA funds to
supplement regular appropriations during fiscal year 2012; and
(3) increase the allocation for states that have little or no
ARRA funding remaining for use in fiscal year 2012. Given
current spending rates of ARRA funds, the recommendation
provides sufficient appropriations and flexibility such that
all states should have funds in fiscal year 2012 approximately
equivalent to their fiscal year 2010 allocations.
State Energy Program.--The Committee recommends $25,000,000
for the State Energy Program, $25,000,000 below fiscal year
2011 and $38,798,000 below the budget request, all of which
shall be for formula grants.
Tribal Energy Activities.--The Committee recommends
$10,000,000 for tribal energy projects, $3,000,000 above fiscal
year 2011 and the same as the budget request, to continue
providing assistance to tribes for developing sustainable and
economical energy solutions for their communities.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
Appropriation, 2011................................... $141,010,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 237,717,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 139,496,000
Comparison:...........................................
Appropriation, 2011............................... -1,514,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -98,221,000
The Committee recommends $139,496,000 for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability, $1,514,000 below fiscal year
2011 and $98,221,000 below the budget request. After accounting
for a one-time rescission of $3,700,000 in fiscal year 2011 and
the use of $504,000 of prior-year balances in this bill, the
recommendation is $4,710,000 below fiscal year 2011.
The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program
advances technologies and provides operational support to
increase the efficiency, resiliency, 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. 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.
Use of prior-year balances.--The Department is directed to
use $504,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the request.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and
Development.--The Committee recommends $103,813,000 for
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and
Development, $1,187,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $89,004,000
below the budget request.
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for Clean Energy
Transmission and Reliability, $6,000,000 below fiscal year 2011
and $40,817,000 below the budget request. The recommendation
includes no funding for the Smart Grid Technology and Systems
Hub.
In the budget request, the Department proposes a new
Advanced Modeling Grid Research program to develop systems for
processing grid sensor data in order to provide better real-
time monitoring and grid planning. The Committee notes that the
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy also proposes to fund
Electrical Infrastructure research, some of which may focus on
software and other systems to actively control electricity
transmission and distribution systems. The Committee is
generally encouraged by the Department's increasing
coordination to ensure that cooperation--rather than
redundancy--occurs among overlapping programs. The Committee
therefore expects the Department to coordinate the grid-related
activities across these two programs, and directs the
Department to provide, not later than 180 days after enactment
of this Act, a report outlining the activities relating to grid
modeling in both Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
and the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy; any points
of overlap between the two programs; and a cohesive vision for
research and development across both program offices to advance
grid modeling in a coordinated manner.
The Committee recommends $33,813,000 for Smart Grid
Research and Development, $4,813,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$11,187,000 below the budget request; and $20,000,000 for
energy storage research and development, the same as fiscal
year 2011 and $37,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for cyber security for
energy delivery systems research and development, the same as
fiscal year 2011 and the budget request. As advanced
electronics and information networks become increasingly
integrated with the nation's electric power systems, the
Committee remains concerned that prevention methods keep pace
with heightened risks of both cyber and physical attack. It is
imperative that the Department of Energy collaborates with
other federal agencies to maintain a holistic cyber security
program that assesses risks to the national electricity
infrastructure, sets preventative security standards, and
develops and disseminates security technologies into the
electricity delivery system through private sector entities.
The Department shall report to the Committee not later than
March 1, 2012, on its efforts to cooperatively work with other
federal agencies and the private sector on risk assessment,
grid security standards, development of risk mitigation
measures, and deployment of those measures. The Department
should also be prepared to update the Committee on the threat
to the energy delivery systems not later than that date.
Within the cyber security research program, the Department
is encouraged to conduct full-scale testing to corroborate
modeling and simulation of cyber attacks and develop mitigation
approaches.
Permitting, Siting and Analysis.--The Committee recommends
$8,000,000, $2,000,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as
the budget request.
Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration.--The
Committee recommends $6,187,000, $87,000 above fiscal year 2011
and the same as the budget request.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $22,000,000,
$5,610,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $9,217,000 below the
budget request.
Nuclear Energy
Appropriation, 2011................................... $725,824,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 754,028,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 733,633,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +7,809,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -20,395,000
The Committee recommends $733,633,000 for Nuclear Energy,
$7,809,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $20,395,000 below the
budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission of
$6,300,000 in fiscal year 2011 and the use of $1,367,000 of
prior-year balances in this bill, the recommendation is
$2,876,000 above fiscal year 2011.
Nuclear power currently generates 20 percent of America's
electricity and will continue to play a vital role in the
future as a reliable and domestic source of energy. Nuclear
Energy activities at the Department of Energy advance the next
generation of safe, secure, and economic nuclear power options
and contribute to the nation's long-term leadership in the
nuclear power industry in the United States and abroad.
The events at the Fukushima Daiichi facilities in March of
2011 reinforce the imperative to invest in the safety and
security of the nation's current fleet of nuclear power plants
and facilities. In addition to contributing to that effort, the
Nuclear Energy program ensures through research, development,
and demonstration activities that future generations of nuclear
power reactors are even safer and more resilient.
The bill supports two programs, Small Modular Reactors
(SMR) and the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), that will
demonstrate the next generation of passively-safe nuclear
power. Due to their small size and other innovative features,
these reactors can employ inherently safe designs that do not
require active cooling in the unlikely event of backup and
power grid failure. While the current fleet of American nuclear
power plants are safe and governed by rigorous oversight, the
SMR, NGNP, and other next generation designs supported by
Nuclear Energy research will further increase the substantial
safety margins of the nation's nuclear power plants.
National laboratories, universities, and U.S. industry all
make important contributions to the development of domestic
nuclear energy technologies and advanced reactors. However, the
Committee notes that industry would be eligible to compete for
less than 10 percent of the total fiscal year 2012 budget
request, and only one third of that small portion was made
available for industry grants in fiscal year 2010. In order to
foster collaboration among the Department's laboratories and
industry partners, to retain U.S. industrial involvement in
nuclear energy, and to ensure that the best research groups for
each activity carry out research on behalf of the Department,
the Committee recommends that not less than 10 percent of the
total appropriation for Nuclear Energy be fully and openly
competed among national laboratories, universities, and U.S.
industry. Further, the Department is directed to report to the
Committee, not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act,
a list of all Nuclear Energy activities funded in fiscal year
2012 and the instituion types eligible for each activity. The
Department shall provide to the Committee an update for this
report, not later than April 1, 2012, indicating the type of
grantee(s) that ultimately received funding for each activity.
Use of prior-year balances.--The Department is directed to
use $1,367,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the
request.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee provides $439,000,000 for Nuclear Energy
Research and Development, $28,473,000 above fiscal year 2011
and $8,374,000 below the request.
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--For this program,
which draws upon expertise in industry, academia, and the
national laboratories to develop technologies that will support
a wide variety of nuclear reactor designs, the Committee
recommends $95,014,000, $43,631,000 above comparable activities
in fiscal year 2011 and $2,350,000 below the budget request.
The recommendation includes $14,580,000 for the National
Science User Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory, the
same as the request.
The recommendation includes $24,300,000 within Nuclear
Energy Enabling Technologies for the Modeling and Simulation
Energy Innovation Hub, the same as the request. The Department
is directed to deliver to the Committee, not later than 60 days
after enactment of this Act, a report detailing: the current
status of the Hub, including number of employees and status of
the Hub's final offices and other facilities; all milestones
originally set forth for the Hub, including those for the end
of fiscal years 2010 and 2011; the Hub's current performance in
meeting those milestones; the Hub's milestones for fiscal years
2012, 2013 and 2014; and the specific milestones and
performance criteria that the Hub must meet in order to be
considered for a second five-year term.
Integrated University Program.--The Committee recommends
$5,000,000 to continue the Integrated University Program, which
supports scholarships, fellowships, and educational
opportunities for nuclear science, engineering,
nonproliferation, and other fields in the highly-specialized
field of nuclear energy. The Committee recommendation also
includes funding for this program within the National Nuclear
Security Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing
Technical Support.--The Committee recommends $67,000,000, the
same as the request, to provide licensing and first-of-a-kind
engineering support for two reactor designs and sites. The
Committee notes the potential for significant advantages of
small modular reactors when compared to conventional full-sized
reactors and supports exploration of this avenue through both
research and the licensing process. Further, within tight
fiscal constraints, it is imperative that the Department
identifies specific program goals and termination criteria for
any new programs it initiates. The Department is therefore
directed to provide to the Committee, not later than December
15, 2011, a report including: specific annual milestones and
expected federal costs for the SMR licensing program through
completion of licensing for two designs; and the specific
advantages that must be demonstrated in SMR designs to continue
federal funding, including target metrics relating to expected
capital cost, financing, safety, potential for a domestic
supply chain, quantified private sector interest, and other
areas identified by the Department that make the case for
significant public benefits of and federal support for small
modular reactors.
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and
Demonstration.--The Committee recommends $136,986,000,
$31,549,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $11,986,000 above the
request. The recommendation includes $28,674,000 for Small
Modular Reactors (SMR) Advanced Concepts Research and
Development, the same as the request; and $25,000,000 for Light
Water Reactor Sustainability, $3,616,000 above the request.
The recommendation also includes $63,572,000 for the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program, $14,000,000 above the
request, for Phase 1 research and development and to support
activities in preparation of a Phase 2 demonstration while the
Committee awaits a Secretarial recommendation for the future of
the project. The NGNP program seeks to develop and demonstrate
nuclear technologies that can significantly increase the
competitiveness of U.S industry by providing an alternative for
process heat production. The Committee has strongly supported
NGNP in prior years by providing over $500,000,000 for the
program's Phase 1 research, development, and conceptual design
activities. Regardless of the ultimate decision for the Phase 2
demonstration project, the Committee expects that the
Department will request adequate funds to ensure the reasonable
completion of research and dissemination of knowledge produced
by this considerable Phase 1 effort. Further, the Committee
directs the Department to actively engage with industry in
order to determine the best path forward for Phase 2.
The Committee is concerned that, over the past decade, the
Department has shifted priorities from Generation IV reactors
with a focus on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant's high
temperature gas-cooled reactors with industrial applications,
to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership's focus on
reprocessing and fast reactor development to close the nuclear
fuel cycle, to the new focus on Small Modular Reactors for
electric power generation, in what appears to be a constant
shifting of priorities that starts many initiatives and
finishes none. To ensure disciplined choices for its reactor
research, development, and demonstration programs, and to
ensure that each program is chosen carefully and carried
through to completion, the Department is requested to provide
to the Committee a list of objective criteria that establish
priorities for funding of reactor initiatives. These criteria
should be chosen such that they (1) articulate and further the
specific energy goals for the Office of Nuclear Energy, and (2)
increase the likelihood that the office funds technological
innovations that are ultimately commercialized in the nuclear
industry.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee
recommends $132,000,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and
Development, $55,615,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $23,010,000
below the request.
From within available funds, the recommendation includes
$36,000,000 for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition, $1,249,000 below
the budget request. The Committee directs that all
documentation relating to Yucca Mountain, including technical
information, records, and other documents, as well as
scientific data and physical materials, be preserved.
International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.--The Committee
recommends $3,000,000, the same as the request, for
International Nuclear Energy Cooperation. The Department is
directed to report to the Committee, not later than March 1,
2012, an inventory of all international activities conducted in
fiscal year 2012 across the Office of Nuclear Energy, including
funding levels and the program or activity from which the funds
are drawn.
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Radiological Facilities Management program maintains
safe and effective operation of the critical infrastructure
that provides radioisotope power systems production
capabilities for defense and space agency users. These outside
users fund the Department's operational, production, and
research activities on a reimbursable basis. The Committee
recommends $49,000,000, $2,714,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$15,888,000 below the request.
The Committee encourages the Department, within available
funds, to provide the base infrastructure funding such that all
strategic nuclear materials and engineering facilities are
maintained in full compliance with Department of Energy
operational and safety orders and directives for nuclear
infrastructure and to ensure these facilities are capable of
serving Department mission needs in nuclear research and
development.
Space and Defense Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$44,014,000, $2,892,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $5,888,000
below the request.
Plutonium-238 Production Restart Project.--The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) uses the vast
majority of plutonium-238 (Pu-238) produced or procured by the
federal government. The Committee remains concerned that the
Administration continues to request equal funding from NASA and
the Department of Energy for a project that primarily benefits
NASA. The Committee provides no funds for this project, and
encourages the Administration to devise a plan for this project
that more closely aligns the costs paid by federal agencies
with the benefits they receive.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $155,000,000, $28,604,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $5,000,000 above the request, for Idaho
National Laboratory (INL) operations and infrastructure.
Consistent with prior years, funds provided under this heading
are intended to develop new capabilities; address Idaho
facility management operations, maintenance and repair; support
environmental compliance; provide for other necessary capital
equipment purchases; and operate the laboratory's new advanced
post-irradiation examination capabilities. The recommendation
also increases funding to accelerate the planning, acquisition
and execution of identified improvements in safety system
reliability; severe accident management and response
capability; and revitalization of aging or obsolete equipment
and instrumentation, monitoring and control systems at existing
nuclear facilities.
The Committee notes that $14,580,000 for the National
Science User Facility previously funded within Idaho Facilities
Management is funded within Nuclear Energy Enabling
Technologies in fiscal year 2012, as proposed in the budget
request.
program direction
The Committee recommends $92,000,000 for Program Direction,
$5,721,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $1,133,000 below the
budget request. The recommended increase is intended to support
existing personnel, federal personnel transferred into the
Office of Nuclear Energy from the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, as well as the other aspects of
program direction.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
Appropriation, 2011................................... $444,529,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 452,975,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 476,993,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +32,464,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. +24,018,000
The Committee recommends $476,993,000 for Fossil Energy
Research and Development, $32,464,000 above fiscal year 2011
and $24,018,000 above the budget request. After accounting for
a one-time rescission of $140,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 and
the use of $23,007,000 in prior-year balances in the bill, the
recommendation is $84,529,000 below fiscal year 2011.
Fossil energy resources, such as coal and natural gas,
power more than 70 percent of the nation's homes and businesses
and will continue to provide the majority of electricity
generation for the foreseeable future. The Fossil Energy
Research and Development program funds research, development,
and demonstration activities to improve existing technologies
and develop next-generation systems. At a time when fossil fuel
power generation is expanding around the globe, these
activities advance our nation's position as a leader in fossil
energy technologies and at the same time ensure that we use our
domestic resources safely and efficiently.
The budget request continues the Administration's push to
shift the focus of Fossil Energy Research and Development
towards carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and the
Committee is concerned that this approach ignores opportunities
to use the nation's natural resources more efficiently, to
ensure the nation's economic strength by keeping power costs
low, and ultimately to keep fossil fuel industry jobs in the
United States and strengthen the role of the United States as a
leader in this sector as other nations move quickly to expand
their fossil energy base. The program should invest in a broad
array of research avenues, rather than focusing on the single,
narrow goal of carbon capture and sequestration.
Further, the Committee remains concerned about the
Administration's approach to shift funds from certain advanced
fossil energy materials research activities at a time when such
activities show significant potential for cleaner and more
efficient fuel combustion for electric power generation. As
such, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to
refocus its efforts on this research and apply the necessary
funding to those activities.
Use of prior-year balances.--The Department is directed to
use $23,007,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the
request.
CCS and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends
$338,762,000 for CCS and Power Systems, $47,404,000 above the
budget request.
The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for Advanced Energy
Systems, $40,807,000 above the budget request. Of this amount,
the recommendation includes not less than $25,000,000 to
continue the Department's research, development, and
demonstration of solid oxide fuel cell systems, which have the
potential to substantially increase 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.
The recommendation also includes $5,000,000 for High
Performance Materials, $4,027,000 above the request, and
$10,000,000 for the Coal and Coal-Biomass to Liquids program.
Within Gasification Systems, a subprogram of Advanced Energy
Systems, the recommendation includes $8,000,000, the same as
the budget request, to continue activities improving advanced
air separation technologies.
The Committee recommends $49,347,000 for Cross Cutting
Research, $6,597,000 above the budget request.
Natural Gas Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$15,000,000 for Natural Gas Technologies, $13,004,000 above
fiscal year 2011 and $15,000,000 above the budget request, not
less than $10,000,000 of which is for the Department to
continue gas hydrates research and development activities.
The development and subsequent use of hydraulic fracturing,
or ``fracking,'' techniques and other advanced drilling methods
have recently expanded domestic natural gas resources to
include vast reserves in shale gas formations. These newly-
available reserves have the potential to greatly strengthen the
nation's economic, energy, and environmental security, and we
must use this resource fully while ensuring public health and
safety. The Department of Energy, with its technical expertise,
can contribute productively to this effort through
collaborative partnerships with industry, states, and
municipalities.
On May 5, 2011, the Secretary of Energy announced a group
of experts tasked with recommending best practices for natural
gas hydraulic fracturing from shale gas formations. The
Committee is concerned that the selected panel members will not
adequately represent industry perspectives, and therefore will
not foster a spirit of partnership among industry,
environmental, and governmental parties. In order to strengthen
these partnerships and industry support for any subsequent
recommendations, no less than one-third of panel members should
be industry representatives who actively work in the natural
gas industry. Further, the Department is directed to provide to
the Committee a list, resulting from panel deliberations, of
specific recommendations for Department of Energy activities
that can assist industry in improving hydraulic fracturing
technologies, as well as their budgetary requirements for the
current and future fiscal years.
Program Direction.--Strong program oversight and management
are critical to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are efficiently
and appropriately spent. Across the Department's basic science
and applied energy research and development accounts, program
direction ranges from 4 percent to 13 percent of total account
funding in the budget request. By contrast, program direction
for Fossil Energy Research and Development in the budget
request is more than 35 percent of total account funding. The
Committee believes that management of this program can be done
more efficiently, and that more of each taxpayer dollar spent
on Fossil Energy Research and Development can go toward
developing technology innovations. The Committee recommends
$120,847,000 for Program Direction, $30,882,000 below fiscal
year 2011 and $38,386,000 below the budget request. At this
level, Fossil Energy program direction is more than 25 percent
of total account funding--still a larger percentage than any
other research and development energy program, but more in line
with the norm and what should be necessary to cost-effectively
oversee activities.
Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other
Petroleum Research Fund.--The recommendation does not include
the legislative repeal of this fund and its programs, as
proposed in the budget request.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
Appropriation, 2011................................... $20,854,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 14,909,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 14,909,000
Comparison:...........................................
Appropriation, 2011............................... -5,945,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve
the national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900's,
and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 1996 required the sale of the Government's interest
in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR-1). To comply with this
requirement, the Elk Hills field in California was sold to
Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of
Elk Hills, the transfer of the oil shale reserves, and transfer
of administrative jurisdiction and environmental remediation of
the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 (NPR-2) to the Department of the
Interior, the Department retains one Naval Petroleum Reserve
property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR-3) in Wyoming
(Teapot Dome field). This is a stripper well oil field that the
Department has maintained while it remained economically
productive. The fiscal year 2012 budget request proposes to
cease production at this field, based on projections that
production costs will exceed revenues and to develop a plan for
its sale or disposition. The budget request does not include
funding for management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing
Center (RMOTC) at NPR-3, proposing to allow only projects with
fully reimbursable arrangements or which are fully funded by
the Department's Geothermal Technology Program. Funds are
included in the budget request for continuing environmental and
remediation work at Elk Hills and NPR-3.
The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval
petroleum and oil shale reserves is $14,909,000, $5,945,000
below fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request.
The Committee recognizes that the RMOTC operates as a
field-testing facility for renewable and fossil fuel energy
technologies, and, therefore, is a research facility similar to
others operated by the Department of Energy. The Committee
directs the Department to use $250,000 provided in fiscal year
2012 to develop a long-term management plan for the RMOTC that
includes a transition to a self-sustaining facility and
supports the use of unobligated funds from prior years, if
available, to support the testing mission at the RMOTC until
such transition is completed.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Appropriation, 2011................................... $123,141,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 121,704,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 192,704,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +69,563,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. +71,000,000
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
current capacity of the Reserve is 727 million barrels. The
facility is at capacity and provides 75 days of net import
protection for the United States economy.
The Committee recommendation does not include the
$71,000,000 rescission proposed in the budget request, as that
was included in the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Appropriations
Act. Therefore, the recommendation is $192,704,000, $69,563,000
above fiscal year 2011 and $71,000,000 above the budget
request. After accounting for a one-time rescission in fiscal
year 2011, the recommendation is $16,737,000 below fiscal year
2011.
SPR Petroleum Account
Appropriation, 2011................................... $--
Budget estimate, 2012................................. -250,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... -500,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -250,000,000
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35)
created the SPR Petroleum Account to fund all Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR) petroleum acquisitions, associated
transportation costs, U.S. customs duties, terminal throughput
charges and other related miscellaneous costs. The account also
funds the incremental costs of withdrawal and transportation of
oil during an emergency drawdown and sale.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request proposes a non-
emergency sale of oil valued at $500,000,000 from the reserve.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the amount
of revenue from this sale that will be realized in fiscal year
2012 is $250,000,000, while the remaining $250,000,000 would
not be realized until fiscal year 2013. This limited drawdown
will provide spare storage capacity necessary to complete the
replacement of one storage cavern and to perform structural
inspections required under state law on other caverns.
Rather than depositing the revenues from the sale into the
SPR Reserve Account for use in purchasing oil at a later date
to refill the reserve, the budget proposes cancellation of the
sale revenues. This ``savings'' is then used to offset spending
elsewhere in the Department of Energy's budget request. The
Committee supports the actions necessary to ensure continued
structural integrity at storage sites, but is concerned about
the use of revenues for other purposes. The Committee's
acceptance of the proposal should not be viewed as a precedent
or as support for future uses of SPR oil sales to mask
Departmental spending. Language in the budget request is
included to allow balances in the account to be used for the
costs of this non-emergency sale.
The budget request also includes a legislative proposal to
rescind the authority to fill the reserve through royalty-in-
kind. The Committee does not include this legislative proposal
as the royalty-in-kind program has been an important tool in
filling the reserve to its current capacity. Instead, and in
light of recommendations for improvements to the program made
by the Government Accountability Office, the Committee includes
a provision prohibiting the Secretary from using the royalty-
in-kind authority to restock oil sold during this limited
drawdown. The Committee also includes language to ensure that
the Department is able to account for all revenue from this
sale in fiscal year 2012.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2011................................... $10,978,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. -89,881,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... -89,881,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -100,859,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the
Northeast began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy,
through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded
contracts for the lease of commercial storage facilities and
acquisition of heating oil. The purpose of the Reserve is to
assure home heating oil supplies for the northeastern states
during times of very low inventories and significant threats to
the immediate supply of heating oil. The Northeast Heating Oil
Reserve was established as a separate entity from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The Reserve has contained
up to 2 million barrels, with approximately one-half located in
commercial facilities in New York Harbor and approximately one-
half located in commercial facilities in New Haven,
Connecticut, and the Providence, Rhode Island area.
The entire Reserve was sold in February 2011, to begin the
process of converting the reserves to ultra-low sulfur heating
oil, as required by certain New England states and to prepare
for new commercial storage leases. The Department intends to
restock the Reserve with only 1 million barrels of distillate
located only in New England, and the Committee includes
language limiting the size of the reserve consistent with this
plan.
The budget request proposes cancellation of any excess
revenues from the sale, valued at approximately $100,000,000.
The Committee includes a rescission of the same amount.
Although the Reserve will be reduced in size by 50 percent, the
budget request is roughly the same as the fiscal year 2011
request due to the increased costs of commercial storage.
After accounting for the one-time rescission of
$100,000,000, the Committee recommendation for the Northeast
Home Heating Oil Reserve is $10,119,000, $859,000 below fiscal
year 2011 and the same as the budget request.
Energy Information Administration
Appropriation, 2011................................... $95,009,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 123,957,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 105,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +9,991,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -18,957,000
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
$105,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration,
$9,991,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $18,957,000 below the
budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission of
$400,000 in fiscal year 2011, the recommendation is $9,591,000
above fiscal year 2011.
With the increases in funding over fiscal year 2011, the
Department is directed to fund all data collection, releases,
and reports on oil, natural gas, electricity, renewables, and
coal; all previously funded international energy statistics;
and all ongoing energy analysis efforts, before allocating
funding to the energy consumption surveys.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriation, 2011................................... $223,450,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 219,121,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 213,121,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -10,329,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -6,000,000
The Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program includes
funds to manage and cleanup sites used for civilian energy
research and non-defense related activities. These past
activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous and mixed waste
contamination that requires remediation, stabilization, or some
other action. The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup is $213,121,000, $10,329,000 below fiscal
year 2011 and $6,000,000 below the budget request. After
accounting for a one-time rescission in fiscal year 2011 of
$900,000, the recommendation is $11,229,000 below fiscal year
2011.
Economic development.--None of the Non-Defense
Environmental Management funds, including those provided in the
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup and Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for
economic development activities.
Small Sites and Sponsored Facilities.--The Committee is
concerned about the lack of remediation activity taking place
around the country at various Department sponsored facilities
and small sites under the responsibility of the Department. Not
later than November 15, 2011, the Department is directed to
develop and report a detailed action plan on remediating these
small sites and sponsored facilities. The plan should take into
account, where appropriate, models for site cleanup performed
by private sector and third party organizations which could be
less expensive and faster than the traditional agency-led
cleanup model.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriation, 2011................................... $497,084,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 504,169,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 449,000,000
Maximum use of miscellaneous proceeds, 2012........... 150,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -48,084,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -55,169,000
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 Piketon, Ohio;
Paducah, Kentucky; and the East Tennessee Technology Park, in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Title X of the 1992 Act also authorized
use of a portion of the fund to reimburse private licensees for
the federal government's share of the cost of cleaning up
uranium and thorium processing sites. The Committee recommends
$449,000,000 for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, $48,084,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $55,169,000 below the budget request.
After accounting for a one-time rescission in fiscal year 2011
of $9,900,000, the recommendation is $57,984,000 below fiscal
year 2011. The bill permits the Department to collect an
additional $150,000,000 by bartering uranium, resulting in a
total program funding of $599,000,000.
The Committee recommendation includes $77,780,000 for
Paducah, $182,747,000 for Oak Ridge, and $188,473,000 for
Portsmouth. In addition, a maximum of $150,000,000 may be made
available through the Department's uranium bartering
arrangement with Portsmouth. Funding for administration,
community and regulatory support previously provided under this
appropriation for Portsmouth, Paducah and Oak Ridge has been
transferred to Community, Regulatory, and Program Support under
the Defense Environmental Cleanup appropriation as requested.
While the Committee is supportive of fulfilling the federal
government's responsibility for cleaning up these sites, the
Committee is greatly concerned with the proliferation of
strategies the Department is using to attempt to augment
appropriated funds. During fiscal year 2010, the Department
improperly made use of $100,000,000 in proceeds from the sale
of Department-owned uranium in order to fund cleanup of
Department liabilities at Portsmouth despite a 2006 GAO finding
that a similar arrangement had violated the miscellaneous
receipts statute. In fiscal year 2011, the Department intends
to further increase the amount of uranium bartered to derive
another $150,000,000 in funding. Although not included in its
budget request, the Department has announced plans to accrue in
fiscal year 2012 just over $200,000,000 in additional funds for
cleanup at Portsmouth through this mechanism.
The bill includes a provision making the availability of
proceeds from barter, transfer or sale of uranium subject to
appropriations. The overall reduction in fiscal year 2012
appropriated funding takes into account the Department's use of
miscellaneous proceeds of up to $150,000,000 to fund cleanup at
Portsmouth. The Committee has reduced the Department's proposed
use of proceeds by $50,000,000 noting that the Department has
failed to adequately address concerns that its use of this
process destabilizes the uranium markets.
For fiscal year 2013, the Department is directed to request
any proposed use of miscellaneous proceeds in its budget
request.
Science
Appropriation, 2011................................... $4,842,665,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 5,416,114,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 4,800,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -42,665,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -616,114,000
The Office of Science funds basic science research in
support of the Department of Energy's core energy-focused
missions. Through science research in physics, biology,
chemistry, and other fundamental science and technology
disciplines, the Department pushes the limits of scientific
understanding and helps to maintain the nation's leadership in
energy innovation. Through national laboratories, universities,
and other partnerships, the Office of Science funds a
significant portion of science research nationwide.
Science research includes programs focusing on high energy
physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental
research, basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing,
fusion energy sciences, maintenance and construction of science
laboratory infrastructure, safeguards and security at the
science laboratories, workforce development for teachers and
scientists, and science program direction.
The Committee recommendation is $4,800,000,000, $42,665,000
below fiscal year 2011 and $616,114,000 below the budget
request. After accounting for a one-time rescission of
$15,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 and the use of $2,749,000 of
prior-year balances in this bill, the recommendation is
$54,916,000 below fiscal year 2011.
Understanding that harnessing scientific and technological
ingenuity has long been at the core of the nation's prosperity,
the Department has programs designed to increase the number of
underrepresented minorities in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) areas. The Committee
encourages the Department to maintain this commitment by
engaging in competitions supporting programs that increase the
number of underrepresented college minorities in STEM fields.
The Secretary of Energy shall submit a report to the Congress
concurrent with the fiscal year 2013 budget request evaluating
the effectiveness of this initiative.
Use of prior-year balances.--The Department is directed to
use $2,749,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the
request.
advanced scientific computing research
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program develops
world-leading computing and networking capabilities in support
of science and energy research. The Committee recommends
$427,093,000 for Advanced Scientific Computing Research,
$5,096,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $38,507,000 below the
request.
The Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security
Administration fund the development and operation of the
world's fastest computing systems. These systems have
consistently topped the list of the world's fastest
supercomputers. More than just symbolic, American leadership in
supercomputing supports domestic world-leading weapons and
scientific research while keeping the private sector at the
leading edge of information technology. Global competition has
become increasingly fierce, with the United States unseated
from the top spot in late 2010. The Committee continues to
support science activities in the United States that improve
and develop the world's fastest supercomputing systems.
Exascale Computing.--Beyond short-term incremental
improvements in leadership computing systems, the Department is
currently conducting research into the development of an
exaflop speed--or ``exascale''--computing platform that would
run at three orders of magnitude faster than today's fastest
computing systems. The pursuit of computing capabilities at
these speeds is crucial to maintaining U.S. leadership in the
increasingly important field of high performance computing, and
in the broader information technology industry. Further,
exascale systems will enable new simulations and analyses not
currently possible in basic science research, energy technology
development and weapons science. As both the Office of Science
and the National Nuclear Security Administration have vested
interests in exascale computing, the Committee commends efforts
to collaborate on exascale research across these two programs
and encourages further coordination and collaboration.
While the budget request proposes funding increases to
accelerate exascale research and emphasizes its importance, the
Department has not yet aggregated exascale research components
into a coherent effort. Several Department national
laboratories have stated target years for exascale prototypes
and fully-operational exascale systems, but the Department has
not stated any such timeframes, nor has it provided clear
funding amounts for the exascale effort in the budget request.
The Department is directed to provide to the Committee, not
later than February 10, 2012, a report including its current
target date for developing an operational exascale platform,
interim milestones towards reaching that target, estimated
total ranges of Department investment likely needed to hit
those targets, and a complete listing of exascale activities
included in the budget request broken out by program and
activity with comparisons to the current year's funding levels.
The Committee is supportive of investment in the national
laboratories to expedite the exascale initiative, but also
recognizes that small technology companies frequently provide
the breakthrough innovations that are needed to achieve the
kind of low-power, high-speed systems needed for exascale
computing, particularly as the leap to exascale may require
unconventional technology solutions. For this reason, the
Committee encourages the Department not to limit its exascale
efforts solely to national laboratories and the largest private
sector organizations, but also to consider small companies and
research organizations working on the cutting edge of computing
technologies.
basic energy sciences
Basic Energy Sciences supports research in materials
science, chemistry, geoscience and bioscience to provide the
foundations for future innovations in energy technologies and
national security. The Committee recommends $1,688,145,000 for
Basic Energy Sciences, $9,950,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$296,855,000 below the request.
The recommendation includes $24,300,000 for the third year
of the Fuels from Sunlight Energy Innovation Hub. The Committee
is encouraged that this Hub is aggressively partnering with
Energy Frontier Research Centers and other Department-funded
groups conducting research into catalysts, membranes, and other
areas that can contribute to the Hub's mission. The Department
is directed to deliver to the Committee, not later than 60 days
after enactment of this Act, a report detailing: the current
status of the Hub, including number of employees and status of
the Hub's final offices and other facilities; all milestones
originally set forth for the Hub, including those for the end
of fiscal years 2010 and 2011; the Hub's current performance in
meeting those milestones; the Hub's milestones for fiscal years
2012, 2013 and 2014; and the specific milestones and
performance criteria that the Hub must meet in order to be
considered for a second five-year term.
Within available funds, the recommendation includes
$20,000,000 to establish an Energy Innovation Hub for Batteries
and Energy Storage. The Department is directed to deliver to
the Committee, not later than 90 days after enactment of this
Act, a report detailing: a timeline for selecting the awardee;
draft organizational and research milestones for the end of
fiscal years 2012 through 2016; and specific criteria the Hub
must meet to be considered for extension beyond the initial
five-year term. The report must also identify how the Hub will
work with other Department of Energy programs and activities
focusing on batteries and energy storage, including any Energy
Frontier Research Centers focusing on related research areas.
From within available funds, the recommendation includes no
funds to establish new Energy Frontier Research Centers
(EFRCs), the same as the request. The Department first funded
the existing EFRCs in fiscal year 2009, establishing 46 centers
for initial five-year periods to research five areas of science
that would enable energy innovation. The Committee supports the
energy-focused missions of the centers, as well as the
increased visibility, transparency and accountability they
bring to research conducted within Basic Energy Sciences. As
with other initiatives established for limited terms, such as
the Energy Innovation Hubs and BioEnergy Research Centers, the
Department should not assume that all, or even most, Energy
Frontier Research Centers will be continued beyond their fifth
year in fiscal year 2013. Rather, each EFRC will be required to
demonstrate superior performance and results germane to the
Department's energy-focused mission in order to receive an
extension beyond the initial five-year award. To prepare for
that review process and to better inform the Committee on the
performance of these centers, the Department is directed to
provide to the Committee, not later than March 1, 2012, a
report including the five-year research goals for each EFRC,
each center's current status towards reaching those goals, and
the Department's latest rating of each EFRC's performance as
they pass their half-way point and the Committee considers
funding for the last year of the initial five-year awards.
The recommendation provides no funds, $8,520,000 below the
request, for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research.
The Department proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget
request, and again this year, to move gas hydrates research
from the Office of Fossil Energy to the Office of Science. As
the proposed activities remain largely unchanged, this activity
is more appropriately and effectively located within the Office
of Fossil Energy. As such, no funding is included in the
recommendation for Basic Energy Sciences for the proposed new
gas hydrates activity.
Terminations of Underperforming Projects.--Basic Energy
Sciences research often operates at the boundaries of human
knowledge in pursuit of solutions to the Department's energy
challenges. In this mission-focused pursuit, projects can often
fail, either due to deficiencies of the research team or simply
due to unexpected obstacles encountered when confronting some
of the most difficult scientific problems. When a multi-year
project struggles to meet its goals, it is a difficult decision
but may be the best use of taxpayer dollars to terminate the
project. The Committee is concerned that this effective
practice is not often implemented at the Department of Energy.
The Committee is encouraged by one example, the Advanced
Research Projects Agency--Energy, which is closely monitoring
all projects and actively considering the termination of
projects that fail to meet their challenging goals. However,
the Committee is concerned that Basic Energy Sciences is not
holding its research groups accountable in the same way, and
that it is not terminating underperforming grants.
Further, while a portion of Basic Energy Sciences research
is awarded to known recipients with defined goals--for example,
to Energy Frontier Research Centers and Energy Innovation
Hubs--more than 80 percent of the $854,669,000 of research in
the budget request for Basic Energy Sciences lacks transparency
to the public and to the Congress. The Committee is concerned
that, in light of this lack of transparency, research
activities receiving federal funding are not being held
accountable to achieve the goals that make Basic Energy Science
so critical to American scientific expertise and energy
innovation.
While free scientific exploration without use-inspired
goals is important to advancing science, innovation, and
American intellectual property, research funded under
Department of Energy programs is ultimately centered on its
core energy-focused goals. Within that context, most Science
research should have concrete goals, and most research should
have measurable performance. The Department is therefore
directed to create a performance ranking of all ongoing multi-
year research projects across Basic Energy Sciences, including
those at universities, national laboratories, Energy Frontier
Research Centers, Energy Innovation Hubs and other recipients,
by comparing current performance with original project goals.
The Department is directed to terminate the lowest-ranking
awards within Basic Energy Sciences in the amount of
$25,000,000, and to report to the Committee, not later than
March 15, 2012, on the results of the ranking exercise and
selected terminations. These terminations will ensure that
taxpayer dollars go only to the highest-performing projects,
and will serve as a first step towards increasing the
accountability and effectiveness of the research in this
important program.
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 $547,075,000 for Biological and
Environmental Research, $64,748,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$170,825,000 below the request.
The Committee supports activities that align closely with
the Department's core missions and advance the nation's
leadership in intellectual property generation and energy
innovation. Within Biological and Environmental Research, such
mission-focused activities include plant and microbe biology
research that can enable breakthrough innovations in energy
technologies like next-generation biofuel production, as well
as research in support of the Department's ongoing site and
facility cleanup responsibilities.
To this end, the Committee supports the Department's
efforts to eliminate activities that do not align with core
Departmental missions. While Office of Science research
focusing on medical applications of an artificial retina has
produced important advances, the Department cannot sustain the
use of funds for such off-mission purposes. The recommendation
includes no funds for this research line, the same as the
request, and the Department is directed to report to the
Committee, not later than December 15, 2011, on its strategy to
transition this research to the National Institutes of Health
or other appropriate federal entity.
The Climate and Environmental Sciences program devotes the
majority of its funding to areas not directly related to the
core mandate of science and technology research leading to
energy innovations. Further, climate research at the Department
of Energy is closely related to activities carried out in other
federal agencies and may be better carried out by those
organizations. The Department proposes to eliminate medical
research focused on human applications in order to direct
limited funds to on-mission purposes, and the Department should
apply the same principles to climate and atmospheric research.
The Committee continues to support the goals of the
Bioenergy Research Centers (BRCs), which conduct science
research aiming to develop the next generation of economic
fuels made from domestic plant sources that do not compete with
the nations' food supply. Successful breakthroughs at the BRCs
could result in technologies that could leapfrog current
incarnations of cellulosic biofuels and provide a path to
substantially reducing the nation's oil imports. However, these
centers were never envisioned as permanent research
institutions dependent on federal funding, but instead as
temporary and targeted initiatives with five-year terms. In
order to receive funding beyond fiscal year 2012, the fifth
full year of funding, the Department will need to fully justify
to the Committee each center's performance. The Committee
therefore directs the Department to provide to the Committee,
not later than February 6, 2012, a full evaluation of each
Bioenergy Research Center, a comparison of each center's
achievements with the Department's original targets, and the
Department's subsequent recommendation for extension or
conclusion of each center.
While the Department has increased collaboration between
the Bioenergy Research Centers and its applied research and
development programs, the Committee encourages greater
integration and cooperation among these activities in order to
more effectively advance biofuels solutions from the
laboratories to commercial production.
fusion energy sciences
Fusion Energy Sciences conducts basic science research and
experimentation seeking to harness nuclear fusion for energy
production purposes. The Committee recommends $406,000,000 for
fusion energy sciences, $30,537,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$6,300,000 above the request.
While the National Nuclear Security Administration performs
inertial confinement fusion research for nuclear stockpile
stewardship, the Office of Science has historically focused on
magnetic confinement fusion and other related research. The
Committee continues to strongly support magnetic confinement
fusion research both as a source of American scientific
leadership and expertise, and as a long-term effort to develop
a clean energy alternative powered by domestic resources. As a
result of the program's sole focus on magnetic fusion energy,
however, the Office of Science's program does not have a broad
framework for pursuing research avenues related to inertial
fusion energy. In anticipation of achieving ignition at the
National Ignition Facility--a critical milestone in the
demonstration of inertial confinement fusion's feasibility for
energy production--the Department has commissioned a National
Academies study assessing the prospects for power generation
with inertial fusion energy and identifying obstacles and
challenges that will assist in developing a research and
development roadmap. The Committee supports this study and
encourages the Department to move quickly upon completion of
the report to determine a proposed path forward for inertial
fusion energy in the event ignition is achieved.
Further, the Committee remains concerned that research
expertise may be lost while the Department awaits completion of
the National Academies study, which is not due until July of
2012. The Committee urges the Department to fully evaluate
existing research capabilities that do not fit easily within
the existing weapons-focused inertial and energy-focused
magnetic confinement fusion programs, such as krypton fluoride
lasers and magneto-inertial fusion, but that may play important
roles if an inertial fusion energy program moves forward in
future years. The Department should take action to avoid
irreversible losses in expertise in these areas before
completion of the National Academies study.
The budget request proposes $105,000,000 for ITER, the
first full-scale test reactor for fusion energy. The Committee
supports this project as an important step in the development
of fusion energy and takes seriously the Department's
commitments to international collaborations. However, the
Department of Energy's required contribution to ITER is
expected to increase substantially in the next several years,
and the Committee is concerned that, while funding for ITER
will yield important advances to domestic superconductor and
other manufacturing capabilities, it may leave little budgetary
room to continue supporting critical American fusion science
expertise. Further, the Department has not preemptively
indicated how it is planning for this impending budgetary
challenge, nor has it created a clear prioritization of
activities within Fusion Energy Sciences to guide tradeoffs
when budgets are tight. The Department is therefore directed to
submit a 10-year plan, not later than 12 months after enactment
of this Act, on the Department's proposed research and
development activities in magnetic fusion under four realistic
budget scenarios. The report shall (1) identify specific areas
of fusion energy research and enabling technology development
in which the United States can and should establish or solidify
a lead in the global fusion energy development effort, and (2)
identify priorities for facility construction and facility
decommissioning under each of the four budget scenarios. The
Department is encouraged to use a similar approach adopted by
the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel that
developed a 10-year strategic plan for the Department's high
energy physics program.
high energy physics
The Committee recommends $797,200,000 for High Energy
Physics, $1,780,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the
budget request.
The United States led the world in high-energy particle
physics for much of the twentieth century, most recently as the
host of Fermilab's Tevatron accelerator, which staged the
world's highest-energy particle collisions for several decades.
As the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN ramps up operation
as the world's leading experimental site for high-energy
collider physics, the Committee supports the Department of
Energy's significant ongoing contributions to this
international collaboration probing the edges of scientific
discovery on the nature of the universe. The Committee also
supports the Department's careful prioritization within this
program and decision to invest in the so-called ``intensity
frontier'' of high-energy physics--an area of science in which
the United States can become a global leader. In a time marked
by the need for fiscal restraint, the Department will be
pressed to further prioritize between these two competing
directions within High Energy Physics.
The Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory
(DUSEL) has been an important component of the Department's
planning for the build-out of its neutrino and dark matter
experimental capabilities. The decision by the National Science
Foundation to discontinue funding for the underground
laboratory has created additional uncertainty for program
planning and delayed the Critical Decision 1 milestone for the
Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment. As the Department weighs
alternatives, the Committee cautions the Department against
taking over the construction and long-term management of DUSEL.
Adopting management of yet another laboratory site would add
budgetary and management burdens to an already stressed
program. However, the Committee supports the use of funding to
maintain the viability of the DUSEL underground laboratory,
including dewatering and maintaining security, in order to
preserve it as an option while the Department weighs the
alternatives. Further, the Department is directed to report to
the Committee an assessment of alternatives to DUSEL and its
recommendations for moving forward.
nuclear physics
The Committee recommends $552,000,000 for Nuclear Physics,
$11,886,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $53,300,000 below the
request. The recommendation includes $24,000,000 for the
Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, $6,000,000 below the budget
request.
The Committee notes that the Nuclear Physics program has
unique experimental capabilities for testing materials under
irradiative environments. Materials stressed by intense
radiation are important to many technologies, including nuclear
fission and nuclear fusion. After the completion of the fusion
energy experiment ITER, for example, the most significant
technical obstacle to construction of a fully-operational
demonstration fusion reactor is the development of containment
materials that can withstand a sustained high flux of neutrons
without significant degradation. The Committee encourages the
Department to consider ways to strengthen productive
cooperation between Nuclear Physics and other programs at the
Department of Energy to better understand and develop materials
that can withstand high levels of radiation.
workforce development for teachers and scientists
The Committee recommends $17,849,000 for workforce
development for teachers and scientists, $4,751,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $17,751,000 below the request.
Within the funds provided, up to $5,000,000 is for the
graduate fellowship program to fund the existing cohort
established in fiscal year 2010. The Department is directed to
report to the Committee, not later than 90 days after enactment
of this Act, a 10-year plan outlining the long-term objectives
for this program, the number of simultaneous fellowships the
Department plans to ultimately support under a flat-budget
scenario for the Office of Science, and the funding needs under
that plan. The plan shall also justify to the Committee why
fellowships should be funded within the Office of Science when
other agencies, in particular the National Science Foundation,
are the primary federal entities for such purposes.
science laboratories infrastructure
The Committee recommends $103,487,000 for Science
Laboratories Infrastructure, $22,260,000 below fiscal year 2011
and $8,313,000 below the budget request.
The Department is directed to consider payments to school
districts nationwide that are eligible for Payments in Lieu of
Taxes where the Department has not met its reimbursement
obligations.
safeguards and security
The Committee recommends $83,900,000, $114,000 above fiscal
year 2011 and the same as the budget request, to meet
safeguards and security requirements at Office of Science
facilities.
science program direction
The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for Science Program
Direction, $22,520,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $36,863,000
below the request.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, 2011................................... -$2,800,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. --
Recommended, 2012..................................... 25,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +27,800,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. +25,000,000
The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000,
$27,800,000 more than fiscal year 2011 and $25,000,000 more
than the request, to continue the Department of Energy's
congressionally-mandated activities to continue the Yucca
Mountain license application activity.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Administration's
attempts to shut down this activity are without scientific
merit and are contrary to existing law and congressional
direction. The Committee has included this funding to provide
necessary expenses in the event that ongoing litigation
requires the Administration to reconstitute its license
application team.
The Committee supports the good analytical work that the
Blue Ribbon Commission on American's Nuclear Future could
contribute to the national dialogue surrounding nuclear power.
While the Committee understands that the Commission is not a
``siting commission,'' the Commission does have an obligation
to include in its analysis information gathered from decades of
work on Yucca Mountain, and should be able to show how and why
any of its proposed alternatives are better than the existing
options. The Committee directs the Blue Ribbon Commission, as
it has in the past, to include Yucca Mountain among the
alternatives it is considering for the future of nuclear waste
disposition in the United States.
While disposition at Yucca Mountain and additional
geological repositories must be part of this nation's spent
fuel disposition plan, this Administration's political
maneuvering has further delayed the opening of any such
repository. In the meantime, this delay is increasing the
liability of the U.S. government caused by its failure to
fulfill the responsibilities laid out in the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, liabilities which must eventually be paid
by the taxpayer. As discussed above, these liabilities may be
as much as $16.2 billion by 2020 and $500 million more each
year after.
This Committee has long held the view that the federal
government could demonstrate its capability to meet its
contractual obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by
addressing the spent fuel and other high-level nuclear waste at
permanently shut-down reactors. Moreover, the Department of
Energy, in a December 2008 report prepared at the direction of
the Committee, indicated that the interim storage of this
material ``would provide the Department an option in addition
to Yucca Mountain to allow the Department to begin to meet its
contractual obligations with the owners of commercial spent
nuclear fuel. This option could prove beneficial should Yucca
Mountain experience delays due to licensing, litigation, lack
of funding or other causes . . .'' Clearly, the
Administration's Yucca Mountain approach has now caused such
delays.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to submit,
with its fiscal year 2013 budget request, a plan containing
options to develop interim storage capacity that would, as a
priority matter, provide a means of consolidating the spent
nuclear fuel and other high level waste present at permanently
shut-down reactors. This plan should include a cost-benefit
analysis comparing the options to the status quo. The
Department should also submit to the appropriate Committees any
legislation it determines necessary to facilitate the
implementation of such plan.
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
Appropriation, 2011................................... $179,640,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 550,011,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 100,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -79,640,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -450,011,000
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 that
are capable of significantly changing the energy sector to
address our critical economic and energy security challenges.
Projects funded by ARPA-E include such wide-ranging areas as
production processes for transportation fuel alternatives that
can reduce our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling
technologies with exceptionally high energy efficiency, and
improvements in petroleum refining processes. The Committee
recommends $100,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects
Agency--Energy, $79,640,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$450,011,000 below the budget request.
Personnel.--ARPA-E, launched in the first half of 2009, has
been widely praised for its internal management and its
effective collaboration with industry and academia. As the
program transitions from infancy to maturity, it will
experience significant management challenges as the first round
of leadership personnel reaches the end of its term and it
hires a second wave of management and program directors. This
first wave of turnover will mark a significant test for ARPA-E
as it transitions from its founding leadership, and the
Committee will watch closely as the program navigates through
the management and hiring challenges associated with
organizational maturation.
Further, the Administration has emphasized the importance
of hiring leading technical experts to serve for limited terms
as ARPA-E program directors, and it has had notable success
assembling a strong leadership team known to be at the
technical forefront of ARPA-E areas of focus. The Committee
encourages the Department to apply lessons learned from ARPA-
E's program director strategy to other Department of Energy
programs, and to evaluate whether term assignments of technical
experts for program management positions are advantageous and
practical in other Department program offices.
Up-front Project Funding.--ARPA-E Recovery Act grants, the
only grants awarded by the program to date, were fully funded
with available appropriations in order to cover the entire cost
of each 2-3 year grant. The Department has decided to fund
ARPA-E projects in fiscal year 2012 in the same fashion by
fully funding most new awards with fiscal year 2012
appropriations. The Committee supports this decision, as it
will not create mortgages on funding in future years and will
preserve the program's flexibility to enter new technology
areas each year rather than saddling the budget with
commitments to past awards.
Project Risk.--ARPA-E offers grants in a wide variety of
technology areas, the majority of which are also addressed by
other Department programs. The measure of project risk and the
designation of specific technology challenges as ``whitespace''
not addressed in any other program are the sole criteria that
differentiate ARPA-E projects from those in other offices--and
that ultimately attempt to prevent redundancies across the
Department. Project risk, however, is difficult to measure and
quantify, and the Department has not set forth a plan for how
it intends to do so more coherently than on a case-by-case
basis. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to fund
only projects that cannot otherwise attract private capital
investment, and directs ARPA-E to provide to the Committee, not
later than December 15, 2011, a definition of estimated project
risk that guides the determination of what projects should be
funded by ARPA-E and what are more appropriate for other
Department programs.
ARPA-E leadership has noted that failure of projects is
endemic to the high risk level deliberately chosen by the
program. The organization is accordingly considering the first
terminations of projects that have not met performance
standards. The Committee does not view a measured quantity of
project terminations as a symptom of program failure, but
rather as an indication that the program has chosen projects
with an appropriately high level of risk. Further, the
Committee views the termination of projects as a sign of strong
program management capable of enforcing a commitment to use
scarce federal funding effectively.
Proposed Focus Areas.--The budget request proposes to focus
on water power; novel ways to harness and store solar energy;
advanced materials supporting nuclear and fossil energy;
electric grid technologies; lighting, heating, cooling, and
other building technologies; advances in energy-intensive
materials production; next-generation battery research; fuel
cells; and other areas. The Committee also supports ARPA-E's
proposal to focus on breakthrough natural gas technologies.
These technologies, including the conversion of natural gas to
liquid fuels and the production of natural gas from renewable
sources, can lead to the widespread use of natural gas in the
transportation sector and reduce the nation's dependence on
imported oil.
Progress Report.--Only in its third calendar year of
operation, ARPA-E is still an experimental research model for
energy innovation and the Department must continue to closely
evaluate the efficacy of the program. By its nature, some of
the program's projects will yield moderate successes, some
projects will fail, and perhaps others will yield great
success. However, the Department has not stated how it will
measure the program's overall success in the near-, mid- and
long-term. The Department must determine the frequency with
which ARPA-E projects should succeed in order to consider the
overall program a success, and over what timeframe it expects
the program to yield successes that significantly impact the
energy marketplace and American competitiveness. The Committee
looks forward to receiving a clear articulation by the
Department of its measurement plan, project success rate
targets, and market impact goals for ARPA-E. To help the
Committee begin to gauge ARPA-E's success rates, the Department
is directed to provide, not later than February 10, 2012, a
listing of all projects, including areas of focus; federal
funding levels, private sector capital attracted before and
after engagement with ARPA-E, and an assessment of project
performance compared with ARPA-E's project targets. The
Committee acknowledges the tension between transparency and
confidentiality for award recipients when ARPA-E reports on
project metrics, and the Committee will work with ARPA-E to
find the right balance.
Title 17--Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
program funds
Appropriation, 2011................................... -$340,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 1,060,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 160,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +160,340,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -900,000,000
administrative expenses
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2011................................... $58,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 38,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 38,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS
Appropriation, 2011................................... -$58,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. -38,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... -38,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
The Loan Guarantee program under Title XVII of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 is a key component of the overall national
effort to invest in an efficient and more reliable electricity
system, as well as improved electric power transmission.
The budget request for the Loan Guarantee program included
$36,000,000,000 in additional authority for nuclear power
projects; $200,000,000 in appropriated credit subsidy cost for
innovative energy efficiency and renewable projects; and
administrative expenses of $38,000,000, which are offset by
fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy
Act. The Committee recommends $160,000,000, $160,340,000 above
fiscal year 2011 and $900,000,000 below the budget request.
This level includes $160,000,000 in appropriated credit subsidy
cost; administrative expenses of $38,000,000, which are fully
offset; and no additional authority for nuclear power plants.
This Committee continues to strongly support the role of
nuclear power in the United States. The tragedy in Japan
highlights the potential for accidents and underscores the need
for the safety improvements that the next generation of plants
will incorporate. However, neither the track record of this
program nor the current demand for projects supports the
request for an additional $36,000,000,000 in nuclear plant loan
authority. The Committee includes no additional authority for
nuclear plan loan guarantee authority, noting that nearly
$11,000,000,000 in previous authority remains, and will
consider requests for additional authority in response to
demand.
The Administration's request for appropriated credit
subsidy costs for innovative energy efficiency and renewable
projects is driven by the impending termination of funding
provided for these purposes in Public Law 111-5, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Of the $6,000,000,000
provided in that Act, approximately $730,000,000, or 12
percent, has been used over the last two years to support
loans. Partially because of the slow administration of this
program, $3,500,000,000 has been transferred to other programs
since 2009. Today, more than $1,500,000,000 remains, all of
which is set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2011.
The private sector has invested hundreds of millions of
dollars, in good faith, to qualify for this support program and
over $14,000,000,000 in projects are in the pipeline. While the
Committee provided authority and funding in Public Law 112-10,
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011, to help sustain some of these
projects, much of this investment is now in jeopardy due to the
slow implementation of the program. The Committee strongly
encourages the Department to consider available resources while
issuing conditional loan commitments. The recommendation
includes another $160,000,000 in appropriated subsidy to
support these programs under the modified 1703 authority
contained in Public Law 112-10. The Committee directs the
Department to give priority to those projects which received
``continuation letters'' in the event that the remaining
Recovery Act credit subsidy is insufficient to support them.
The Government Accountability Office has issued a series of
reports identifying flaws in the program, including
inconsistent treatment of applications. One of the most
significant criticisms has been the lack of transparency with
which credit subsidies are developed. In stark contrast to best
practices in the private sector, the Administration keeps
secret its assumptions and evaluations, leading to accusations
of political manipulation. Since the Committee is itself denied
access to this data, it is unable to provide appropriate
oversight or evaluate the veracity of these claims.
Accordingly, the bill includes legislative language requiring
notification of the award, including the proposed subsidy cost,
three business days prior to the award of a final or
conditional commitment for any loan authority provided in the
bill.
The Committee does not include funding for the ``Better
Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative for Universities,
Schools and Hospitals,'' a new Administration proposal.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
Appropriation, 2011................................... $9,978,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 6,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 6,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -3,978,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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, $3,978,000
below fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. The
funds provided support administrative operations only.
Departmental Administration
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2011................................... $168,239,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 240,623,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 221,514,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +53,275,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -19,109,000
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2011................................... -$119,501,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. -111,883,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... -111,883,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +7,618,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2011................................... $48,738,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 128,740,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 109,631,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +60,893,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -19,109,000
The Committee recommendation for Departmental
Administration is $221,514,000, $53,275,000 above fiscal year
2011 and $19,109,000 below the budget request. The
recommendation for revenues is $111,883,000 as requested,
resulting in a net appropriation of $109,631,000. After
accounting for a one-time rescission of $81,900,000 in fiscal
year 2011, the recommendation is $21,007,000 below fiscal year
2011. 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 $2,000,000 for this office, $500,000 more than
requested, to coordinate and implement energy management,
conservation, education, and delivery systems for Native
Americans.
Office of the General Counsel.--The Committee has reduced
funding for the Office of the General Counsel by $4,642,000
from the budget request to reflect the Committee's disagreement
with the General Counsel's interpretation of congressional
intent regarding Yucca Mountain.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriation, 2011................................... $42,764,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 41,774,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 41,774,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -990,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) performs agency-
wide audit, inspection and investigative functions to identify
and correct management and administrative deficiencies that
create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud,
waste and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial
and performance audits of programs and operations. The
inspections function provides independent inspections and
analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of
programs and operations. The investigative function provides
for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal
activities involving programs, personnel and operations.
The Committee recommendation is $41,774,000, $990,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the
Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) consist of Weapons Activities, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the
Administrator; outside of the NNSA, these include Defense
Environmental Cleanup 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. Three offices within the
NNSA carry out the Department's national security mission: the
Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation and the Office of Naval Reactors. The Office
of the NNSA Administrator oversees all NNSA programs.
Reprogramming authority.--For the first time, the Committee
carries 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 recommendations for the Department of Energy's
various accounts. In recognition of the national security
mission of the NNSA, the legislative language carries an
exception to the reprogramming requirements that allows the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the NNSA to
jointly waive the restriction. In granting the Secretary and
the Administrator this authority, the Committee expects it to
be used only in cases where a credible national security threat
exists or in the case of a high-priority national security
interest.
Reporting requirements for early warhead life extension
activities.--The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has
failed to make needed improvements to its acquisition process
for life extension programs, known as the Phase 6.x process. In
its recent investigation into B61 life extension activities,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that current
management practices are resulting in unrealistic schedule
goals, and that the acquisition process needs to be revised to
require that future life extension studies are properly scoped
for the available time. The findings echo those previously
reported in the GAO's 2009 review of the W76 life extension
program in which the GAO concluded that the NNSA established an
unrealistic schedule for working through technical challenges
and failed to fully implement its own guidance for managing the
acquisition process. The impacts of past management failures
are clear, since the W76 life extension program breached its
cost growth thresholds early in the process and has still not
achieved full production rates.
The scope of the work planned to extend the life of the B61
is even greater than previous warhead life extensions, and the
stockpile management plan indicates that follow-on life
extensions are likely to be similar ``full scope''
refurbishments. The NNSA must take immediate steps to address
its weak acquisition process for life extension activities to
assure the Committee that it will be able to accomplish these
tasks before approaching the end of the weapon's service life
or the service life of components that must be replaced.
In particular, the NNSA must improve management of its
early life extension activities, which are becoming more
extensive efforts as component and production technology
development activities are shifted forward to meet compressed
schedules. As a result, the NNSA is spending considerable
amounts to mature technologies and explore concepts in
conjunction with the early phases of its life extension
activities. These costs must be clearly accounted for in the
budget request in order to ensure transparency. While a formal
detailed Selected Acquisition Report is required by statute
following formulation of a program baseline, the reporting for
early life extension activities remains informal and lacks
adequate detail on the full scope and costs of activities. In
order for the Committee to consider full funding for warhead
life extensions, the following information must be submitted
with the budget request:
1. Phase 6.1 Concept Study.--The NNSA should report the
full scope of the conceptual design activities proposed,
including an estimate of the total cost of the concept study
and costs of any related technology maturation activities to be
performed in conjunction with the study.
2. Phase 6.2a Design Definition and Cost Study.--At the
commencement of Phase 6.2a, the NNSA should provide a report on
the military requirements established for the life extension
effort and a preliminary estimate of the costs and schedule
requirements for the life extension program. The report should
include a description of any alternatives for warhead
enhancements under consideration, such as those for safety,
security or maintainability, along with a comparative
assessment of the resource implications and technical risks of
each alternative. The Committee is supportive of a broad
exploration of design options, but expects the NNSA to develop
a formal plan for maturing technologies associated with novel
design concepts early in its acquisition process that is
properly scoped to meet the cost and schedule requirements of
the life extension program. If technology maturation is to be
performed in conjunction with Phase 6.2a, the NNSA shall
provide a formal technology maturation plan with targets for
cost, schedule, and readiness level that must be met for
selection in the baseline design.
3. Phase 6.3 Development Engineering.--At the commencement
of Phase 6.3, the NNSA should provide an interim report on the
results of its design and cost study, including the alternative
selected for the warhead baseline design, estimated cost and
schedule range for the life extension program, and a formal
cost benefit analysis for any enhancements to the warhead
selected, such as those for safety, security or
maintainability. If technology alternatives are selected that
do not meet cost or readiness level targets established in the
technology maturation plan or have not demonstrated a system/
subsystem model or prototype in a relevant environment, the
NNSA should provide a detailed risk mitigation plan to manage
the continuation of maturation into its full scale engineering
development phase in order to ensure that the overall cost and
schedule targets for the life extension program will be met.
All Phase 6.3 Development Engineering work must be included in
the funding requested for the life extension program. Any early
production costs to be incurred prior to Phase 4 Production
Engineering should also be included in the total funding
requested for the life extension program.
Financial Management.--The Committee remains concerned by
the NNSA's financial management practices in accounting for the
costs of its activities. The GAO recently released a report
which concluded that the NNSA primarily bases its future-year
budget requests on the extent to which prior-year budgets were
sufficient to execute these activities. The GAO attributed the
NNSA's failure to accurately identify the total costs of its
activities to the wide variability in how maintenance and
operating contractors account for costs across the nuclear
security enterprise. The budget request indicates that the NNSA
intends to rely more heavily on its contractors to determine
the costs of maintaining facilities, as the amount of
maintenance directly funded is estimated to decrease by almost
50 percent by fiscal year 2016. The NNSA cannot ensure it has a
valid plan for modernization if it continues to pass on the
responsibility for determining funding requirements onto its
contractors. Continued requests to fund overhead activities
that provide little transparency into where that funding is
used do not improve the situation. The NNSA is directed to
develop formal guidance for its contractors for the consistent
collection of information on the total costs to operate and
maintain its facilities and infrastructure. The NNSA should
also develop a plan to consistently fund all facilities and
infrastructure maintenance using direct funding mechanisms that
can be tracked and reported by the Department's accounting
systems.
Pensions.--Of the $4,100,000,000 added to the NNSA's five
year planning estimates for Weapons Activities, $1,100,000,000
was solely to accommodate a growth in contractor defined
benefit pension costs. While some sites have instituted cost
savings measures such as increasing employee contributions,
these decisions are being made at the site level, which leads
to considerable differences in the way the costs of individual
defined benefit pension plans are being managed. The pay and
benefits packages offered to contractor employees must be
modernized to ensure rising costs do not adversely impact
ongoing high priority programmatic activities.
Among the fastest growing of these liabilities are the
legacy University of California retirement plans. These
employees worked at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratories when those laboratories were managed by the
University of California. The latest estimates indicate that
the cost of these two plans alone will be a quarter of the
entire fiscal year 2012 pensions requirement for the NNSA.
While the contractors for the Department's sites are
responsible for paying the costs of employee pensions under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and related
laws, the Department has, over the life of these contracts,
included the pension costs as allowable and in doing so has
assumed the long-term liability for reimbursement. In the
fiscal year 2012 budget request, the NNSA has requested
incremental funding across Weapons Activities and Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation from funds made available for
infrastructure and research and development activities to
directly fund contributions to the University of California
plans. This request serves to bury these large costs into
multiple funding lines and could jeopardize infrastructure
modernization and needed research and development activities if
those costs continue to rise. The Committee recommends funding
for the University of California pension plans in a separately
identified line within Weapons Activities as a transparent and
simplified solution.
Report on Status of the Workforce.--The Administration's
strategy to invest heavily in stockpile work, experimental
science and infrastructure in order to sustain the safety,
security, and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent means
little without a dedicated workforce that possesses the
necessary knowledge, education, skills, and competencies to
accomplish the mission. The GAO recently found that the NNSA
does not collect data on the status of its contractor workforce
and relies primarily on its maintenance and operating
contractors to sustain its personnel capabilities. While the
maintenance and operating contractors may have the same
national-level concerns at heart, they can only manage the
workforce at a particular site and therefore cannot ensure the
long-term survival of the needed skills across the enterprise.
The NNSA must begin to work more closely with its contractors
and develop integrated plans for managing its workforce.
The NNSA should report to the Committee no later than 180
days from enactment of this Act, an assessment of the status of
its contractor workforce. The report should describe the number
of personnel retained, hired, retired, and voluntarily or
involuntarily separated by site over the last five years. It
should describe policies and incentive programs of each
contractor for recruiting and retaining personnel, including
monetary and non-monetary incentives offered. The NNSA should
further provide an assessment of performance in meeting the
human capital needs at each site that is directly linked to the
supporting workforce data it has collected and describe the
path forward and milestones for implementing the GAO's
recommendation to develop an enterprise-wide contractor
workforce baseline of the critical human capital skills,
competencies, and size needed to effectively achieve its
mission.
Report on Footprint Reduction.--Despite promises for a
leaner, more efficient and streamlined enterprise, the NNSA
footprint has actually been growing over the past few years.
Both the Uranium Processing Facility and the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement project will have more square
footage than the legacy facilities they are meant to replace,
and the High Explosive Pressing Facility will occupy nearly
seven times the space of current operations. While new
construction is adding footprint, no funding is planned for
demolition activities beyond the completion of the Facilities
and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program in 2013. Costs of
demolition and decontamination work are not reported alongside
new construction as required, nor are they integrated into the
30-year infrastructure priority lists. The costs of demolition
and decontamination work are not being taken into account when
making investment decisions and the timeline for demonstrating
any savings in operating costs, as regularly described in the
rationale for new facility construction, is being extended to
the distant future. Since the NNSA is not meeting its
requirement to demolish an equal amount of square footage for
each amount added, the Committee questions whether there truly
is a commitment to a leaner, more efficient nuclear security
enterprise.
In order to ensure adherence to the footprint reduction
requirements, the NNSA shall report annually on its footprint
reduction plans, including an accounting of the amount of
square footage to be added or removed by facility and by site.
It should account for existing banked excess square footage by
site. Where facilities add square footage, the rationale for
enlarging the footprint to conduct those operations should be
clearly articulated and tied to a priority identified in the
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.
Improving the Safety of Transporting Nuclear Weapons.--The
Committee directs NNSA to undertake a study to investigate the
feasibility and costs of enhancing the safety of transporting
nuclear weapons where possible, and to report the results of
this study to the Committee no later than June 1, 2012.
Report on Options to Ensure the Supply of Helium-3.--The
Committee is concerned by NNSA's failure to manage the
continued supply of helium-3 to meet national security needs of
the nation. In addition to its national security missions,
helium-3 is needed for medical and scientific research. The
NNSA is directed to provide a report on its efforts to manage
the supply of helium-3, including a full accounting of the
existing supplies, anticipated production, and the full
requirements of all government users supplied by NNSA's
stockpile. The report should explain the criteria currently
used for allocating the scarce supply of helium-3 across the
various users and identify where, and when, the gaps in meeting
the full requirements will fall. Further, the NNSA should
provide the Committee with an evaluation of potential options
and their associated costs for increasing supplies to fully
meet domestic needs, including consideration of increasing
recycling of existing helium-3 or improving the efficiency of
the helium-3 recovery operations at Savannah River.
Contracting Reform.--Despite recent reforms, the NNSA
remains on the GAO's high risk list for fraud, waste, and abuse
for contracting and project management. The Committee supports
reforming contracting practices in those circumstances where it
is possible to improve efficiency, prevent waste and save
taxpayer dollars. In order to provide assurances that new
strategies are to result in genuine improvement, the NNSA must
be able to demonstrate that its decisions are backed by valid
and verifiable quantitative data. The Committee remains
concerned with the NNSA's proposed contract consolidation of
the Y-12 National Security Complex, the Pantex Plant, and
Savannah River tritium work. The NNSA has provided no
verifiable evidence of the $895 million in cost savings to
justify a possible disruption of ongoing and essential
infrastructure improvements at these sites. Without further
supporting evidence, the Committee will continue to question
the benefits of the merger.
The Committee recommends $10,599,031,000 for the NNSA,
$76,511,000 above fiscal year 2011, and $1,113,567,000 below
the budget request. As requested, the recommendation includes
the use of $70,332,000 in prior-year balances to offset total
budget requirements.
Weapons Activities
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2011................................... $6,896,398,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 7,589,384,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 7,091,661,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +195,263,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -497,723,000
Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety,
security, reliability, and performance of the nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile. The activities funded under this
appropriation include the maintenance and refurbishment of
nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their security, safety
and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms
reduction treaties. The Committee recommends $7,091,661,000 for
Weapons Activities, $195,263,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$497,723,000 below the budget request. After accounting for a
one time rescission in fiscal year 2011 of $50,000,000 and the
rescission of $40,332,000 of prior-year balances in this bill,
the level is $185,595,000 above fiscal year 2011.
The request for Weapons Activities is the second year of
large increases requested in order to pursue the
Administration's strategy set forth in the 2010 Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR) to maintain an aging stockpile through full scope
life extension activities, to modernize the infrastructure and
restore capabilities, and to address the immediate maintenance
and production requirements of the stockpile. Despite the
economic crisis, the modernization of the nuclear security
infrastructure remains a major Committee priority and,
therefore, the recommendation provides a three percent increase
over the fiscal year 2011 level, and an 11 percent increase
over pre-NPR levels. While this level provides the increases
necessary to stay on track with the Administration's
infrastructure modernization and stockpile initiatives detailed
in the NPR, the Committee also has a commitment to ensure that
all taxpayer funds are used responsibly and that only the most
cost-effective opportunities are being pursued to meet defense
imperatives. The two major infrastructure projects planned may
now cost as much as $12 billion to construct. The full costs of
refurbishing warheads remain unclear. Even without
modernization, the base costs of operating and maintaining the
nuclear security enterprise continue to escalate, with pension
costs alone estimated to rise 90 percent.
Therefore, the Committee recommendation also upholds the
Committee's commitment to reduce waste and make government more
efficient by recouping savings in security activities that are
available due to completed projects and efficiency investments,
by eliminating unnecessary activities that only provide
marginal benefit, and by reducing overhead accounts that are
driving an escalation in the base operating costs of the
weapons enterprise.
directed stockpile work
The Committee recommends $1,909,787,000 for Directed
Stockpile Work (DSW), $24,428,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$53,796,000 below the budget request. 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 DSW account provides all direct
funding for warhead life extension programs, which are designed
to lengthen the service life of the existing nuclear weapons
stockpile by providing new subsystems and components for each
warhead as needed.
The recommendation includes funding requested for the B61
Life Extension Program under the Readiness Campaign. The
Committee is concerned that the NNSA is undertaking significant
efforts to develop a component maturation framework that would
manage a complex distribution of funding across multiple
funding lines, a practice that would serve to mask the full
costs of individual activities. Responsible stewardship of
taxpayer dollars requires that the costs of individual
acquisition programs are known and justified in the budget
request. The NNSA should simplify how it budgets for these
costs to improve transparency and management.
B61 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$278,562,000 to commence a life extension program for the B61
bomb, $55,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation
moves back funding requested under Campaigns which had been
associated with the B61 in the fiscal year 2011 request. No
more than 50 percent of these funds shall be obligated until
the NNSA meets the reporting requirements for phase 6.3 life
extension activities detailed above. This reporting requires a
cost-benefit analysis of any warhead enhancements, such as
those for safety and security, as well as a technology
maturation risk mitigation plan to manage the development of
any components or production processes that have relatively low
technology readiness levels.
W76 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends
$255,000,000, $6,751,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $2,035,000
below the budget request, consistent with the total
requirements identified in the last Selected Acquisition Report
(SAR) submitted to the Committee for the W76. The Committee
notes the NNSA has yet to update its SAR to reflect
programmatic changes following the Nuclear Posture Review which
would justify any adjustments to the baseline funding plan.
Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $487,627,000
for Stockpile Systems, $158,576,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$10,000,000 below the budget request. The recommendation fully
supports increases requested to perform the core maintenance
activities of the stockpile which includes surveillance,
assessment and limited life component exchange. The
recommendation also includes an adjustment to account for
delays in starting the W78 conceptual study.
Within these funds, the Committee recommends $45,728,000
for W88 Stockpile Systems and $30,000,000 to commence a
conceptual study for a minor refurbishment of the W88. The NNSA
reports it will need over $400,000,000 to design and develop a
new Arming, Fusing, and Firing assembly for the W88 which will
also be used in the follow-on life extension of the W78. This
work represents a larger scope and more costly activity than
the modest replacement originally planned. Since this activity
seeks to develop a new warhead component, the NNSA is directed
to report separate funding for this activity within its request
for maintaining the W88.
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.--The Committee
recommends $56,770,000, $1,139,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
the same as the budget request. NNSA has formally committed to
dismantle all weapons retired prior to 2009 by the end of 2022.
The Committee notes that the NNSA has still not accounted for
the additional costs to dismantle warheads retired due to
stockpile reductions. The Committee expects the NNSA to develop
a plan for these costs in its ten-year plan and to make the
appropriate adjustments to its budget estimates.
Production Support.--The Committee recommends $300,441,000
for Production Support, $54,061,000 below the budget request.
Production Support provides the base manufacturing capabilities
to support the NNSA's production mission. Base capability costs
are relatively insensitive to reductions in the stockpile or
ongoing production requirements.
While production increases for the W76, limited life
components, and dismantlements are provided in their respective
funding lines, a large growth in the base production support
overhead was not specified in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
Therefore, the recommendation provides funding consistent with
the pre-NPR level.
R&D Certification and Safety.--The Committee recommends
$165,892,000 for R&D Certification and Safety, $25,000,000
below the budget request. R&D Certification and Safety provides
the core capabilities for research and development efforts that
are not attributable to a specific warhead system. The
Committee does not support large increases for non-core
activities that have not been justified as directly tied to
stockpile requirements.
campaigns
Campaigns are focused on efforts involving the three
weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons
production plants and selected external organizations to
address critical capabilities needed to achieve program
objectives. For Campaigns, the Committee recommends
$1,605,937,000, $84,702,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$190,790,000 below the budget request. The Committee commends
the NNSA for its outstanding Stockpile Stewardship program and
its considerable progress in furthering the science needed to
maintain an aging nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear
testing. Stockpile Stewardship has produced a more rigorous
scientific understanding of nuclear weapons phenomena than was
ever understood when the stockpile relied primarily on nuclear
testing for certification.
Science Campaign.--For the Science Campaign, the Committee
recommends $312,094,000, $50,425,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$93,845,000 below the budget request. Within these funds,
$19,400,000 is recommended for the Advanced Certification
subprogram to continue building the scientific basis for
improving the weapons certification process. The activities
under this subprogram were originally focused on addressing
comments of the JASONs scientific advisory group on the ability
to certify the Reliable Replacement Warhead. That program has
been cancelled and the Administration has stated it does not
intend to produce a new nuclear weapon. Therefore, it is
unclear why such large increases are being requested and the
recommendation provides funding consistent with the pre-NPR
level. The NNSA should clarify the goals of the Advanced
Certification subprogram and how they are related to current
stockpile requirements.
Engineering Campaign.--For the Engineering Campaign, the
Committee recommends $143,078,000, $2,146,000 above fiscal year
2011 and the same as the request.
Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign.--The
Committee recommendation provides $471,174,000 for the Inertial
Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign, $6,427,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $5,100,000 below the budget request.
Within these funds, $62,500,000 shall be for the Laboratory for
Laser Energetics as requested. The recommendation includes
$4,000,000 for the Joint Program in High Energy Density
Laboratory Plasmas, the same as fiscal year 2011 and $5,100,000
below the budget request.
The Committee continues to support the National Ignition
Facility (NIF) and urges the NNSA to maintain its schedule
towards achieving fusion ignition. The Committee recommendation
includes the full request to pursue ignition at NIF and to
perform supporting weapons-related experiments on its pulsed
power facilities. The Committee notes that NIF is already
contributing to stockpile stewardship through experiments which
ensure the aging nuclear weapons stockpile continues to be
safe, secure and effective without nuclear testing.
Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.--The Committee
recommends $616,000,000 for the Advanced Simulation and
Computing (ASC) Campaign, $5,005,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$12,945,000 below the budget request. High performance
computing underpins our nation's nuclear stewards' ability to
scientifically resolve outstanding weapons performance issues,
address material aging and compatibility challenges, and
conduct warhead life extension program activities. The budget
request includes a new initiative to pursue a jump to exascale
computing speeds, a thousand-fold improvement over today's
modeling and simulation capability. The Committee recognizes
that the request is part of a crosscutting endeavor with the
Office of Science to maintain U.S. leadership in high
performance computing. The Committee commends the Department's
effort for its collaborative approach to develop exascale
computing, which will serve to complement the strengths of both
offices and limit duplication. The Committee supports
initiation of this endeavor within ASC, consistent with other
national security requirements of the Campaign. However,
undertaking such a major initiative will require considerable
funding, and the NNSA has yet to tie the need for this level of
computing to any specific requirements of the stockpile in its
20-year plan.
Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends $63,591,000
for the Readiness Campaign, $35,001,000 below fiscal year 2011
and $78,900,000 below the budget request. The Committee
recommends no funding for the B61 within Nonnuclear Readiness
and has provided the funding requested for these activities
within the B61 Life Extension Program. The Committee recommends
$63,591,000 for Tritium Readiness, $26,780,000 above fiscal
year 2011 and $13,900,000 below the budget request. The NNSA
continues to confront technical challenges in producing
sufficient amounts of tritium to meet the requirements of the
stockpile. Further, these technical barriers and the NNSA's
contracting procedures have led to poor program execution and
the accumulation of large balances. The NNSA must be able to
assure the Committee that the tritium requirements will be met
and that appropriate contracting structures are in place. The
Committee notes that instead of the requirements going down,
the development of a new generation of gas transfer systems
will require tritium production rates greater than three times
the present rate.
Reporting Requirement.--The Committee directs the NNSA to
submit a report, within 180 days of enactment, on its plan to
manage the supply and production of tritium to meet continuing
stockpile needs, including the full range of costs to meet
higher production levels. The NNSA should note any potential
costs that are presently unfunded, such as increasing the
numbers of production reactors or infrastructure needed to meet
environmental and regulatory requirements. It should include a
comparative analysis of available alternatives, including
increasing tritium recovery through acceleration of weapons
dismantlements. The report should clearly discuss the
implications of reduced stockpile levels, new component
designs, and options for strengthening contracting mechanisms
in order to improve budget execution and conformance to GAO
best practices.
readiness in technical base and facilities
The Committee recommends $2,011,315,000 for Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF), $174,027,000 above fiscal
year 2011 and $314,819,000 below the budget request. The
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program provides
funding for the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization
of NNSA facilities and infrastructure. The Committee commends
the NNSA for its work to improve facility conditions and to
replace deteriorating legacy facilities long past the end of
their service lives with new facilities that meet modern safety
and environmental standards. Support for modernization of the
nuclear security infrastructure will remain one of the top
priorities of the Committee. The Committee's recommendation
fully supports the increases required for operations and
maintenance and new construction. Reductions from the request
are due to the transfer of pension funding to a separate
activity within the appropriation and for delays that affect
the funding needs of the new construction projects.
While the importance of modernization is understood, the
economic crisis requires that the NNSA proceed with its
modernization activities in a responsible manner and the
Committee is seriously concerned with the recent cost growth
reported for construction of the Uranium Processing Facility
(UPF) and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement
(CMRR) Project. The current price tag for UPF is projected
between $4,200,000,000 and $6,500,000,000 and the CMRR Nuclear
Facility is estimated to cost between $3,700,000,000 and
$5,800,000,000. These are conceptually replacement facilities
to make operations more safe and efficient, but construction
will also enable the reconstitution of certain production
capabilities that have been lost but are needed to meet the
needs of an aging stockpile. Many gaps remain in the planning
efforts, and basic capability requirements and acquisition
strategies continue to be re-evaluated. Modernization will take
several years and the considerable number of variables still at
play argues against an excessively aggressive funding curve.
The construction of the new major facilities must not force out
available modernization funding for the rest of the nuclear
security enterprise. Therefore, the Committee supports the
adoption of cost reduction strategies to make construction more
affordable and to curb continued cost escalation. Further,
these projects will be closely monitored to ensure that prudent
project management practices are followed, and the Committee is
prepared to make adjustments to the funding profiles to ensure
that taxpayer funds are not wasted.
Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends
$1,295,616,000 for Operations of Facilities, $47,462,000 above
fiscal year 2011 and $189,638,000 below the budget request.
This level supports the full amount requested for the
operations and maintenance at all eight NNSA sites, supports
the transition to new facilities at Kansas City, and addresses
chronic underfunding in the budget request for Pantex, Y-12,
and the Nevada National Security Site. The overall level is
reduced from the request primarily due to the transfer of
funding for legacy contractor pension plans to a separate
activity line and a reduction to Institutional Site Support
activities.
Program Readiness.--The Committee recommends $69,180,000
for Program Readiness, $10,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$5,000,000 below the budget request.
Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee recommends
$75,639,000 for Material Recycle and Recovery, $5,729,000 above
fiscal year 2011 and $10,300,000 below the request. The
Committee notes that the NNSA requested additional funding to
partially support higher production rates for life extension
programs within this subprogram. Marginal production costs
should be directly accounted for in the production costs of
those systems rather than attributed to overhead accounts which
provide little transparency.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $510,629,000 for
Construction, $112,411,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$109,881,000 below the request.
Project 12-D-301, TRU Waste Facilities, Los Alamos National
Laboratory.--The Committee recommends no funding for
construction. This project has yet to obtain a permit from the
State of New Mexico and does not meet the necessary
requirements to start construction activities according to the
Department's project management instructions. Project
engineering and design activities for this project are fully
funded under Project 07-D-140.
Project 11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos
National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends $19,402,000 as
requested.
Project 10-D-501, Nuclear Facilities Risk Reduction, Y-12
National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN.--The Committee
recommends $35,387,000 as requested.
Project 09-D-404, Test Capabilities Revitalization II,
Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM.--The Committee
recommends $25,168,000 as requested.
Project 08-D-802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex
Plant, Amarillo, TX.--The Committee recommends $66,960,000 as
requested.
Project 07-D-140, Project Engineering & Design, various
locations.--The Committee recommends $3,518,000 as requested.
Project 06-D-141, Project Engineering & Design, Uranium
Processing Facility, Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge,
TN.--The Committee recommends $160,194,000 as requested.
Project 04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement (CMRR), Los Alamos National Laboratory.--The
Committee recommends $200,000,000, $100,000,000 below the
budget request. The Committee fully supports the
Administration's plans to modernize the infrastructure, but
intends to closely review the funding requests for new
investments to ensure those plans adhere to good project
management practices. The latest funding profile provided to
the Committee indicates that over half the funding requested
for the Nuclear Facility would be used to start early
construction activities. The recommendation will support the
full request for design activities, but does not provide the
additional funding to support early construction. The NNSA is
not prepared to award that project milestone since it must
first resolve major seismic issues with its design, complete
its work to revalidate which capabilities are needed, and make
a decision on its contracting and acquisition strategies.
secure transportation asset
The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the
United States. The Committee recommends $243,276,000,
$4,273,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $7,996,000 below the
budget request. The recommendation recoups savings from the
federal employee pay freeze and the modernization of federal
aircraft.
nuclear counterterrorism incident response
The Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response (NCTIR)
program responds to and mitigates nuclear and radiological
incidents worldwide. The Committee recommends $222,147,000,
$8,858,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same as the request.
The Committee notes that the business case supporting the
request to replace and maintain a third 737-type aircraft
within the request for Secure Transportation Asset at a cost of
over $20,000,000 is driven by the need to maintain one
dedicated aircraft in a 24/7 ready status in order to meet
NCTIR program requirements. On average, only 80 flight hours a
year are actually flown in support of nuclear incident response
team requirements, partially because the NNSA's fleet does not
meet the full range and cargo capacity requirements to support
deployment of those teams. For instance, emergency managers are
currently forced to leave approximately 45 percent of their
equipment behind and must make multiple fuel stops to get to
their destination. The NNSA will incur costs of $78,000 for
each hour of flight support for emergency response activities
using aircraft that do not even support the full mission
requirements of the program.
Reporting requirement.--The Committee directs the NNSA to
submit a report, within 180 days of enactment, on the aircraft
transportation capabilities needed to carry out its incident
response activities, including a description of activities over
the past three years, number of deployments, number of
personnel and pounds of equipment deployed per mission and
whether NNSA aircraft or alternative means were used for
transport where NNSA-owned aircraft was not suitable or
available, such as for international deployments. The report
should include an analysis of the feasibility, readiness
implications and costs associated with other alternatives which
may be more cost-effective or more suitable for meeting the
range and cargo capacity requirements of the teams.
facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program
The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program
(FIRP) was begun in fiscal year 2002 to reduce the deferred
maintenance backlog that built up across the nuclear weapons
complex. The Committee recommendation for FIRP is $96,380,000,
$3,084,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the request.
site stewardship
Site Stewardship is composed of the following subprograms:
Environmental Projects and Operations, Nuclear Materials
Integration and the Energy Modernization and Investment
Program. The Committee recommends $78,680,000, $25,942,000
below fiscal year 2011 and $25,322,000 below the budget
request. No funding is provided for the Energy Modernization
and Investment Program. NNSA should integrate its
sustainability and energy conservation goals into its overall
infrastructure recapitalization efforts.
The Committee notes that the mission of the Site
Stewardship program is unfocused and that the five-year
planning shows a large and unjustified growth for this
activity. The responsibility to manage the maintenance and
recapitalization of essential infrastructure belongs to the
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program under the
Office of Defense Programs and should not be delegated to other
NNSA organizations. No funding is provided within Site
Stewardship for conceptual design activities associated with
the construction of a new NNSA Service Center Facility in
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The NNSA may conduct conceptual design
activities for this facility within Readiness in Technical Base
and Facilities.
safeguards and security
This program provides for all safeguards and security
requirements for the NNSA. The Committee recommendation for
Safeguards and Security Program is $817,471,000, $19,375,000
below fiscal year 2011 and $32,000,000 below the budget
request.
Defense Nuclear Security.--The Committee recommends
$690,857,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, $22,641,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $32,000,000 below the request. Savings are
available due to the completion of major construction funding
requirements.
The Committee is encouraged by the savings that have been
generated by developing clear and consistent security
requirements across the enterprise and by eliminating
unnecessary costs. The request includes a significant increase
to begin a multi-year reinvestment effort to upgrade the
physical security infrastructure.
However, a multi-year plan for upgrading the physical
security infrastructure is not described in the overall
infrastructure recapitalization plans. The NNSA should
integrate its physical security upgrade projects into its
overall plans to recapitalize the infrastructure and provide
the Committee with a site by site description of the requested
upgrades, total costs, and prioritized schedule.
Project 08-D-701, Nuclear Materials Safeguards and Security
Upgrade Project.--The Committee recommends $11,752,000 as
requested.
Cyber Security.--The Committee recommends $126,614,000 for
Cyber Security, $3,266,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same
as the request.
legacy contractor pensions
The Committee provides $147,000,000 for legacy contractor
employee pensions. Legacy Contractor Pensions provides funding
for payments into the legacy University of California
contractor employee defined benefit pension plans. The pensions
of legacy national laboratory employees are an ongoing
stewardship cost of the nuclear weapons complex. Funding for
these plans was requested alongside infrastructure requirements
within Readiness and Technical Base and Facilities and
alongside research and development funding within
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development
within the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation. The
recommendation provides funding for these multiple requests in
a single funding line as a simplified and more transparent
solution to managing these costs.
The recommendation takes into account significant savings
that are now anticipated by the NNSA since the submission of
the initial fiscal year 2012 estimates of $224,055,000 in the
budget request. The NNSA shall keep the Committee informed of
changes to pension estimates as fiscal year 2011 payments are
finalized.
national security applications
The Committee recommends no funding for National Security
Applications, $20,000,000 below the budget request. There is no
clear requirement for these investments and no criteria
provided whereby technologies would be considered appropriate
for funding under this program. No performance measures have
been developed to support a particular investment strategy.
Maintenance of scientific and engineering capabilities of the
nuclear security enterprise is the responsibility of the Office
of Defense Programs. Additional capabilities that are needed
should be clearly tied to stockpile requirements and integrated
into the overall efforts to maintain a robust scientific
nuclear security enterprise.
funding adjustments
Rescissions.--As requested, the Committee rescinds
$40,332,000 of prior-year balances to meet fiscal year 2012
needs as described above.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, 2011................................... $2,273,653,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 2,519,492,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 2,056,770,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -216,883,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -462,722,000
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes
funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development; Nonproliferation and International Security;
International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation;
Fissile Materials Disposition; and the Global Threat Reduction
Initiative.
The Committee's recommendation for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation is $2,056,770,000, $216,883,000 below fiscal
year 2011 and $462,722,000 below the budget request. After
accounting for a one-time rescission of $45,000,000 in fiscal
year 2011 and the rescission of $30,000,000 of prior-year
balances in this bill, the recommendation is $231,883,000 below
fiscal year 2011.
The recommendation fully supports the Administration's four
year goal to secure vulnerable nuclear material worldwide as an
urgent national security need and priority of the Committee.
These activities involve working cooperatively with countries
around the world to secure at the source, remove to a more
secure location, or return to the United States or Russia at-
risk nuclear materials at research reactors, nuclear
facilities, and other sites. The overall level recommended for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation includes a reduction from the
requested amount for the Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Project, transfers the costs of legacy contractor employee
pensions to Weapons Activities and recoups savings in lower
priority activities that seek to incrementally lower threat
levels over a longer period of time.
nonproliferation and verification research and development
The Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development program conducts applied research, development,
testing, and evaluation of science and technology for
strengthening the United States response to threats to national
security posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and
special nuclear materials. The Committee recommends
$346,150,000 for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development, $14,836,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $71,448,000
below the budget request.
The Committee provides no funding for payments into the
legacy University of California contractor employee defined
benefit pension plans within Nonproliferation and Verification
Research and Development, $71,448,000 below the request. The
cost of pensions for legacy weapons workers at Lawrence
Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories is not a
nonproliferation and verification research and development
activity. Requesting funding incrementally over two accounts
masks the total costs of these liabilities. The Committee
recommends funding for these costs in a separately identified
budgetary line within Weapons Activities as an ongoing
stewardship cost of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
nonproliferation and international security
The Committee recommendation provides $161,833,000 for
Nonproliferation and International Security, $14,339,000 above
fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request.
international nuclear materials protection and cooperation
The International Nuclear Materials Protection and
Cooperation (INMPC) program is designed to work cooperatively
with Russia and the border states of the former Soviet Union,
as well as other states, to secure weapons and weapons-usable
nuclear material. The focus is to improve the physical security
at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of
nuclear weapons-usable materials that are of proliferation
concern. Programmatic activities include installing monitoring
equipment, conducting inventories of nuclear material,
improving the Russian security culture and establishing a
security infrastructure. Expanded border and port security
programs have also installed radiation detection equipment
around the world.
The Committee recommends $496,465,000 for INMPC activities,
$75,529,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $75,174,000 below the
budget request. The funding level fully supports all activities
directly related to the four-year effort to secure vulnerable
nuclear materials worldwide and makes adjustments to the longer
term effort to install radiation detection equipment worldwide
under Second Line of Defense (SLD).
Second Line of Defense.--The Committee recommends
$188,610,000, including $78,432,000 for core program activities
and $110,178,000 for Megaports. With over $1,500,000,000
already spent to install radiation detectors around the world,
the Committee is concerned that there are not adequate
performance measures to gauge the effectiveness of this effort.
The primary performance measure used by the NNSA is the number
of detectors installed, but the true effectiveness of these
detectors in preventing proliferation is largely dependent on
how well individual countries employ these capabilities in
their security operations. The Committee directs the NNSA to
perform a study, either through survey or inspection, on how
individual countries are employing these capabilities after
they have been installed. The study should attempt to determine
whether the equipment is being effectively employed and
adequately maintained, including whether a sufficient volume of
screening is being performed and whether ongoing training is
being conducted by host countries to maintain proficiency. The
NNSA should report the results of its study to the Committee
which includes an overall assessment by country of the
readiness levels to detect nuclear and radiological materials,
as determined by the effectiveness of ongoing activities after
the equipment has been installed. The report should also
identify by country equipment that will continue to be
maintained by the NNSA and the associated ongoing costs.
fissile materials disposition
The Fissile Materials Disposition program consists of major
construction projects, blend-down of surplus U.S. highly
enriched uranium, and a renewed Russian Plutonium Disposition
program. The Committee recommendation provides $694,053,000 for
fissile materials disposition activities, $108,145,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $196,100,000 below the budget request. The
Fissile Materials Disposition Program constitutes 35 percent of
the funding requested for nuclear nonproliferation. As the
costs of construction continue to escalate, the NNSA cannot
necessarily plan on increases in the overall account to
accommodate that cost growth. The threat posed by rising
construction costs to the progress of core nonproliferation
activities remains a major Committee concern.
The U.S. Plutonium Disposition program was created to
dispose of at least 34 metric tons of surplus weapons-usable
plutonium by fabricating it into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use
in civilian nuclear reactors. The costs of this program
continue to escalate, with current estimates of as much as
$9,700,000,000 just to construct the needed facilities.
Even apart from the enormous cost growth, the NNSA has
failed in several aspects of management for this program.
First, the schedule for the project to supply plutonium oxide
feedstock continues to slip, and it is becoming clear there may
not be adequate feedstock quantities to keep up with the
production schedule before that facility can be built.
Secondly, the NNSA remains without any civilian customers for
its MOX fuel. The NNSA's strategy concentrates activities on
expanding the use of MOX into more reactors at the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA). However, TVA is unlikely to commit to
expanding the use of MOX into its three Brown's Ferry boiling-
water reactors before a thorough assessment of the safety and
performance of the MOX fuel in the boiling water reactors at
Fukushima Daiichi has been conducted. Even without accounting
for the Japanese nuclear disaster, the timelines are long to
perform the work that must be done to assure industry and the
public that the use of MOX will not present an unnecessary
risk. The NNSA should focus on developing the sound technical
basis that will be needed to provide those assurances, rather
than hedging its bets on any single strategy. Ultimately, the
success of the overall program hinges on its ability to attract
civilian customers. With considerable investments already made,
the NNSA must show leadership and prove it has not undertaken
an expensive and wasteful program which will ultimately produce
a fuel that industry does not want or that presents unnecessary
risks that exceed any nonproliferation benefits.
U.S. Plutonium Disposition.--The Committee provides
$244,690,000, $44,290,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$30,100,000 below the budget request. Within these funds,
$15,500,000 is provided to continue the ARIES plutonium oxide
production line under the Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Project Other Project Costs.
U.S. Uranium Disposition.--The Committee recommends
$16,435,000, $9,550,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $10,000,000
below the budget request, to account for the termination of
blend down operations at Savannah River.
Project 99-D-143, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility,
Savannah River, SC.--The Committee recommends $385,172,000 as
requested.
Project 99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility, Savannah River, SC.--The Committee recommends
$20,000,000, $156,000,000 below the budget request. After
spending nearly $650,000,000 over eleven years, the NNSA has
failed to even make a decision between constructing a new
greenfield facility or recapitalizing existing facilities in
order to supply feedstock to the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility.
Cost estimates have ballooned to as much as $4.5 billion, a
ten-fold increase over original estimates, yet the Department
will still not be ready to make a decision on its next
milestone until next fiscal year. The Committee will not
support wasting funds on extended deliberations, and will not
support such large increases unless the milestone is finally
awarded and a consistent plan to provide feedstock is
developed.
Project 99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building,
Savannah River, SC.--The Committee recommends $17,582,000 as
requested.
Russian Surplus Materials Disposition.--The Committee
recommends $10,174,000 as requested. Funding is provided to
support research and development activities in order to endorse
progress on the U.S.--Russia Plutonium Management and
Disposition Agreement. However, the path forward remains
unclear. The NNSA should provide an update on the status of the
Russian Surplus Materials Disposition program per the recent
modifications to the agreement with Russia, including updated
planning assumptions for program schedule, costs and
milestones.
global threat reduction initiative
The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) mission is to
identify, secure, remove and facilitate the disposition of
high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and
equipment around the world. The Committee recommends
$388,269,000 for GTRI activities, $47,712,000 below fiscal year
2011 and $120,000,000 below the request. The Committee
recommendation preserves full funding for urgent efforts to
secure and protect vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide.
Funding for long-term reactor conversions is sustained near
current levels, and domestic radiological activities are
reduced or eliminated where they are redundant with the
responsibilities of other federal agencies.
Highly Enriched Uranium Reactor Conversion.--The Committee
recommends $78,269,000 for Highly Enriched Uranium Reactor
Conversion, $70,000,000 below the budget request. The
recommended for the long-term goals to convert foreign reactors
reflects an understanding that progress relies heavily on
international cooperation, which is not yet assured.
Considering the scope of activities planned, there has been
limited progress to convert or shut down a total of 71 Russian
research reactors. Only three Russian reactors have been
verified as shut down and the NNSA is conducting conversion
feasibility studies on an additional six reactors. However,
there is still no agreement with Russia to convert those
reactors after those studies are complete. In light of the
limited progress, the Committee finds the NNSA's timeline and
scope for converting Russian reactors overly optimistic.
Instead of relying on assumptions of future cooperation, the
NNSA should work to establish a framework agreement with Russia
to ascertain how many reactors Russia would consider
converting.
Domestic Activities.--The Committee recommends $21,000,000
for Domestic Material Protection, $30,000,000 below the budget
request. The Committee provides no funding for Domestic
Radiological Material Removal, $20,000,000 below the budget
request. Ensuring adequate security standards for the storage
and disposal of domestic radiological materials is the
responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is not
appropriate to duplicate this mission or to subsidize private
costs of meeting regulatory requirements. GTRI should instead
focus on its core international mission. However, the NNSA has
considerable expertise gained from securing materials
internationally and should leverage this expertise through
participation in joint domestic efforts where possible.
funding adjustments
Rescission.--As requested, the Committee rescinds
$30,000,000 of prior-year balances to meet fiscal year 2012
needs as described above.
Naval Reactors
Appropriation, 2011................................... $959,176,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 1,153,662,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 1,030,600,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +71,424,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -123,062,000
The Naval Reactors 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. These efforts are critical to ensuring the
safety and reliability of operating naval reactor plants and to
developing a replacement for the OHIO-class ballistic missile
submarine. The Committee recommendation provides $1,030,600,000
for Naval Reactors, $71,424,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$123,062,000 below the budget request.
The budget request for Naval Reactors seeks substantial
growth to support an ambitious multi-year plan to replace aging
facilities, grow the federal and contractor workforce, maintain
a robust testing and development program, and build new
capabilities to support changes to the system of defueling,
transporting and storing spent fuel from aircraft carriers. By
2016, Naval Reactors projects its funding requests will
increase to nearly $1,600,000,000, over 50 percent above the
fiscal year 2008 level. These plans indicate a rate of growth
that exceeds that of the NNSA's nuclear weapons program, which
itself plans an aggressive, multi-decade modernization program.
Yet, the thirty-year shipbuilding plan indicates the Navy will
actually reduce its submarine fleet by ten fast attack and two
ballistic missile submarines.
With fewer naval reactors in the planning, supporting the
Navy's shipbuilding schedule does not appear to be the major
cost driver. Rather, the proliferation of new infrastructure
projects and the pursuit of more extensive research and
development activities are driving significant growth in the
base operating costs of the program. The Committee is concerned
this unsustainable trajectory is starting at the worst possible
time, when resources are increasingly scarce. Overcoming these
challenges will require vigorous leadership and the
identification of practical solutions for controlling costs.
The recommendation includes new funding controls within the
Naval Reactors appropriation to provide more transparency into
how funding is being allocated to functional activities. The
existing budget structure provides little insight into the
funding requirements to develop individual reactor systems or
how the scope of those activities compares to previous efforts.
This lack of transparency hampers management and tracking of
total costs related to a particular ship acquisition program
across agencies. In its fiscal year 2013 request, Naval
Reactors is directed to transition to budgeting by individual
ship system, a change needed to improve transparency and enable
cost comparisons for design, development, and operations of
different reactor plant systems. Future funding requests for
development activities should reflect separate funding for
ongoing development of the VIRGINIA and FORD reactor systems,
prototype and test reactors operated by Naval Reactors,
advanced reactor plant concepts, technical support of the
operating fleet, and any other appropriate division of
programmatic activities within its request for Naval Reactors
Development. Tracking the large cost to develop a replacement
for the OHIO-class ballistic missile submarine is a Committee
priority, and the recommendation provides full funding for this
activity in a separately controlled budget line.
OHIO Replacement Reactor Systems Development.--The
Committee recommends $121,300,000 for OHIO-Replacement Reactor
Systems Development, the same as requested within Naval
Reactors Development. Funding shall be used to support only the
research and development work pertaining to the reactor and its
associated equipment and fuel, and power generating systems. No
funding shall be used to develop an electric drive motor, since
funding for development of steam plant systems is provided
separately under appropriations for the Department of Defense.
Naval Reactors Development.--The Committee recommends
$498,700,000 for Naval Reactors Development. Naval Reactors
Development supports funding for Plant Technology, Reactor
Technology and Analysis, and Materials Development and
Verification. Funding requested within Naval Reactors
Development for the OHIO-Replacement and for operations and
infrastructure activities are now funded separately within the
recommendation.
Naval Reactors Operations and Infrastructure.--The
Committee recommends $332,100,000 for Naval Reactors Operations
and Infrastructure. Naval Reactors Operations and
Infrastructure provides funding requested for Evaluation and
Servicing, Advanced Test Reactor Operations and Test Support,
and Facility Operations. Within these funds, $20,000,000 is
provided to support conceptual design activities to
recapitalize the aging spent fuel infrastructure at Naval
Reactors Facility, Idaho.
Reporting Requirement.--The Committee directs Naval
Reactors to submit a report, within 180 days of enactment, on
its ten-year facilities plan, including a project-by-project
description of costs and major milestones; prioritization
employed to support the funding profile and schedule; a
description of the core capabilities needed; operations and
maintenance cost savings or growth resulting from replacing
facilities; the environmental remediation costs associated with
recapitalization; and the project management controls in place
to ensure projects are completed on-cost and on-schedule.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $39,900,000 as
requested.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $38,600,000
for program direction, $1,320,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$5,900,000 below the budget request. During fiscal years 2010
and 2011, the Committee supported increases to the Naval
Reactors federal workforce to provide additional government
oversight for the startup of multi-year programs. While those
activities are ongoing, Naval Reactors is planning an
additional 17 percent growth in the size of its federal
workforce over the next five years. It is not clear why such a
significant growth is required to carry out the continuing
program. Rather than a permanent growth in the federal
workforce, Naval Reactors should investigate alternative
options to meet short term workload requirements, such as the
use of service support contractors.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriation, 2011................................... $393,293,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 450,060,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 420,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +26,707,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -30,060,000
The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and
oversight for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field
offices in New Mexico, Nevada and California. The Committee
recommendation is $420,000,000, $26,707,000 above fiscal year
2011 and $30,060,000 below the budget request. After accounting
for a one-time rescission in fiscal year 2011 of $5,700,000,
the recommendation is $21,007,000 above fiscal year 2011. The
increase takes into account that the fiscal year 2011 level
assumed significant prior-year balances were available to
maintain federal employee workforce levels, and that these
balances are no longer available to offset workforce
requirements in fiscal year 2012.
Support to Minority Colleges and Universities.--The
Committee commends the NNSA for increasing its support within
its request for the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU) program. This program has relied on
congressional action to maintain adequate funding levels. The
Committee recommendation includes the requested amount of
$6,000,000 for Weapons Activities, $3,000,000 for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, and $1,000,000 for Naval Reactors to
engage HBCUs, and further directs the engagement of Hispanic
Serving Institutions and minority outreach at other colleges
and universities in research areas directly supporting program
activities.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriation, 2011................................... $4,979,738,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 5,406,781,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 4,937,619,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -42,119,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -469,162,000
The Defense Environmental Management (EM) program is
responsible for identifying and reducing risks and managing
waste at sites where the nation carried out defense-related
nuclear research and production activities that resulted in
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring
remediation, stabilization, or some other cleanup action. The
Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental Cleanup is
$4,937,619,000, $42,119,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$469,162,000 below the budget request. After accounting for a
one-time rescission in fiscal year 2011 of $11,900,000, the
final transfer of $33,633,000 to the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommission Fund in fiscal year 2011 and
the use of prior-year balances of $3,381,000 in the bill, the
recommendation is $17,005,000 below fiscal year 2011. Within
the amounts provided, the Department is directed to fund
hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000.
The fiscal year 2011 level included a contribution of
$33,633,000 into the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning (UE D&D) fund which is no longer required in
fiscal year 2012. The overall level for Defense Environmental
Cleanup preserves funding at the highest possible levels, a
less than one percent programmatic reduction from fiscal year
2011 in order to meet the federal government's legal
obligations to cleanup defense nuclear waste.
The Committee remains concerned with the overall cost of
EM's program and supports EM's goal to reduce the legacy
footprint by 80 to 90 percent by the end of fiscal year 2015 to
reduce operating costs.
H-Canyon.--The request for Savannah River proposes to place
H-Canyon into hot standby pending a determination by the
Department to begin reprocessing spent fuel. The recommendation
supports this proposal, but the Committee is concerned by EM's
plan to meet its statutory requirements to maintain the
facility in a high state of readiness. H-Canyon is a unique
national capability for performing large scale chemical
processing operations that would take considerable time and
funding to reconstitute if lost. The Department must be able to
demonstrate it can adequately maintain the condition of the
chemical processing areas while it deliberates on the
disposition of spent nuclear fuel. Since the Department of
Energy does not have a good track record for coming to such
decisions in a timely manner, it is imperative that EM find
other missions, such as research and development activities, to
exercise the capabilities of the H-Canyon Complex and for which
H-Canyon can serve as a unique testing platform.
The Department is directed to provide funding to the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to undertake an
investigation of using H-Canyon's chemical processing areas for
conducting research and development activities or other
appropriate chemical processing activities, and to produce a
report on its findings, to be submitted not later than December
1, 2012. In particular, the NAS should evaluate possibilities
for research and development that may provide novel solutions
for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, in consideration of
the Department's continued lack of a disposition path for high-
level nuclear waste.
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.--The validated
project baseline for construction of the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant (WTP) planned on completing the WTP
project and treating waste by 2019 at an annual appropriation
level of $690,000,000. The budget request includes a modified
baseline to accelerate funding for low level waste treatment
activities and proposes to further consolidate project
controls. Prior consolidation of project controls has led to
poor reporting in the budget request and a lack of discipline
in project planning, as the funding profiles for subprojects
now appear to be a moving target. This weak project planning
process, coupled with a continued failure to resolve major
planning uncertainties and outstanding safety issues, has
placed increased risk on the Department's ability to
successfully complete the project. The recommendation provides
additional funding over the baseline amount in order to
mitigate risk and address outstanding safety issues. The
Committee notes the Department is considering further changes
to its project plan, including restructuring its contract to
remove scope. If WTP cannot be completed according to the
performance baseline that was validated in 2006, which includes
a set scope of work, the Committee expects the Department to
perform a new independent cost estimate for the project in
order to justify those performance plan modifications.
The Committee is also seriously concerned by DOE's
continued failure to resolve outstanding safety concerns about
the WTP raised by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB), the organization tasked by Congress to oversee nuclear
safety at DOE. Engineering design issues already identified by
the DNFSB are now accompanied by another finding, released in
June 2011, on the safety culture at the WTP. The most recent
report describes an environment where the professional exchange
of views which a safety culture relies upon is discouraged and
at times punished. For instance, technical experts in their
field expressed that they could not provide opinions on the
safety and validity of design decisions if those opinions would
have budget and schedule implications. Further, DOE management
actions following a series of dissident opinions from some of
its technical experts who worked on the project have been
broadly interpreted as retribution, adversely impacting the
overall safety culture for this project. Among the safety
issues raised by the experts included incorrect engineering
assumptions that could have serious consequences, such as an
inadvertent criticality accident, once the facility becomes
operational.
The Committee commends the DNFSB for their steadfast work
to ensure the safe operation of the WTP, despite requests by
the Secretary to halt their investigation into the safety
culture at the facility. These revelations are both alarming
and disturbing and should be interpreted by the Secretary of
Energy as a call to action. Safety considerations must be first
and foremost in technical decision making, particularly when
the consequences of failure are severe.
The Committee directs the Secretary to certify, within 90
days of enactment of this Act, the safety of its cleanup
operations and projects managed by the Office of Environmental
Management. This certification should include a report which
provides a full assessment of each project, provides meaningful
comparisons of safety and performance priorities for the
projects, and identifies specific areas of improvement. This
certification should not be a simple statement that DOE
regulations are being adhered to, but should qualify whether
the management dynamics in place effectively support the
agency's mission to protect public health and safety.
Furthermore, the report should specifically address actions
taken to improve the safety culture within the WTP project.
Finally, the Department is directed to develop a total cost
estimate of the funding required to perform the large-scale
demonstration testing specifically recommended by the DNFSB to
resolve the outstanding technical safety concerns. Not later
than February 1, 2012, EM should provide a report to the
Committee on its estimate, including a preliminary plan on how
these tests might be carried out and the impacts this testing
would have on the overall project schedule and performance
baseline.
Semi-Annual Reporting Requirement.--The Department is
directed to submit semi-annual reports to the Committee on the
progress of the WTP project, with the first report due no later
than May 1, 2012. The report should include the baseline
funding plan by subproject and clearly identify outstanding
design and safety issues by subproject.
Project Management.--Despite a number of management
improvement initiatives and revision of the Department's
instructions, EM's contract and project management functions
remain on the GAO's high-risk list of programs at risk for
fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. While it will take time
to determine if the management initiatives will translate to
successful projects, the Department must take aggressive steps
to more quickly gauge the success of its reforms, rather than
adopt a wait-and-see approach.
EM has demonstrated laudable success in implementing many
of its projects under the American Reinvestment and Recovery
Act. While these projects tend to be more defined, smaller in
scope and have fewer technical issues than many of the projects
EM is managing in its base program, their success demonstrates
that consistent application of requirements, detailed
performance reporting and disciplined management of project
definition and scope can improve overall project performance at
the Department. EM is directed to conduct an evaluation into
the project management lessons learned for projects carried out
under the Recovery Act and report the results of its
investigation to the Committee, no later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act. The evaluation should not simply focus
on the problems encountered, but should identify best practices
which led to positive performance. The report should provide
the Committee with specific recommendations on how those
lessons can and will be applied to management of ongoing and
future projects.
Report on Project Controls.--The Committee notes that there
are a number of EM capital projects that are not being reported
because they are being funded by operations and maintenance
funding. It is not clear what criteria EM is using to
distinguish a capital asset project from an operational
project. DOE is directed to provide a report, no later than 90
days of enactment, of all projects with a total project cost
greater than $10,000,000 that will be funded by EM during
fiscal year 2012. The report should include a description of
the performance baselines for cost and schedule for each
project, and describe the overall rationale for managing these
projects using operations and maintenance funding.
Closure Sites.--The Committee recommendation provides
$5,375,000, $5,200,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as
the budget request.
Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $933,712,000,
$32,279,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $20,000,000 above the
budget request. Additional funding is provided to accelerate
the demolition and disposition of the Plutonium Finishing Plant
complex in order to realize the cost savings from footprint
reduction more quickly and thereby save taxpayer dollars. An
additional $20,338,000 for community and regulatory support at
Hanford, funding previously appropriated in this activity in
fiscal year 2011, is now provided under Community, Regulatory
and Program Support as requested.
Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends
$382,769,000, $15,897,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same
as the budget request. Funding provided in fiscal year 2011 for
community and regulatory support at Idaho is now provided under
Community, Regulatory and Program Support as requested.
NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommendation provides
$248,753,000, $60,288,000 below fiscal year 2011 and
$174,939,000 below the budget request. The Department has yet
to develop a comprehensive plan for cleanup of legacy waste at
Los Alamos National Laboratory. The total cost of cleanup
remains uncertain, particularly for soil and groundwater
remediation. The Department should focus on site planning to
develop more detailed disposition and restoration strategies
before significantly ramping up its cleanup activities there.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends
$156,100,000, $3,965,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $20,000,000
below the budget request. The Committee notes that only half of
the Recovery Act funding awarded for Oak Ridge cleanup has been
spent and this funding will sustain a substantial amount of
ongoing cleanup activities during fiscal year 2012. The
Committee directs the Department to prioritize and address
safety issues associated with projects that pose the greatest
risk to personnel and facilities through programs such as the
Integrated Facilities Disposition Program. Funding provided in
fiscal year 2011 for community and regulatory support at Oak
Ridge is now provided under Community, Regulatory and Program
Support as requested.
Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommends
$1,148,000,000, $12,402,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$213,391,000 below the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes an increase over the validated
performance baseline funding plan for the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant (WTP) in order to mitigate risk and
resolve outstanding safety issues. Within these funds,
$408,000,000 is provided for tank waste stabilization and
disposition, $11,100,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$113,391,000 below the budget request.
Project 01-D-16 A-D, Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant.--The Committee recommends $363,000,000 as requested.
Project 01-D-16 E, Pretreatment Facility, Waste Treatment
and Immobilization Plant.--The Committee recommends
$377,000,000, $100,000,000 below the budget request.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends
$1,180,738,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site,
$8,354,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $43,406,000 below the
budget request. Funding provided in fiscal year 2011 for
community and regulatory support at Savannah River is now
provided under Community, Regulatory and Program Support as
requested.
Project 05-D-405, Salt Waste Processing Facility, Savannah
River.--The Committee recommends $170,071,000 as requested.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).--The Committee
recommends $220,000,000, $4,286,000 above fiscal year 2011 and
$8,926,000 below the budget request. The recommended level
corresponds to a reduction in planned work as a result of
adjustments made for cleanup activities at Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $316,948,000,
$3,058,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $4,680,000 below the
budget request.
Community, Regulatory and Program Support.--The Committee
recommends $89,779,000, $1,500,000 below the budget request, in
order to consolidate funding previously provided in the
individual site funding allocations within Defense
Environmental Cleanup and the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. The Committee expects
EM to seek efficiencies as a result of the additional
flexibility gained from consolidation. EM is directed to report
funding by site in its budget request for Community, Regulatory
and Program Support.
Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends
$248,826,000 for Safeguards and Security, $1,045,000 above
fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. While the
recommendation accepts the request to consolidate funding under
one control, EM is directed to report funding by site in its
budget request for Safeguards and Security.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
recommends $10,000,000 for Technology Development and
Deployment, $9,413,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $22,320,000
below the request. The Committee includes funds for the
Department to continue successful cooperative efforts to
transfer and demonstrate international technologies and
approaches to the cleanup program.
funding adjustments
Use of Prior-Year Balances.--As requested, the Committee
directs the use of $3,381,000 in prior-year balances to meet
fiscal year 2012 needs as described above.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriation, 2011................................... $785,020,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 859,952,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 814,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +28,980,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -45,952,000
This account provides funding for the Office of Health,
Safety and Security; Office of Legacy Management; Defense-
Related Activities at Idaho National Laboratory; Defense
Related Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and
Appeals. Descriptions of each of these programs are provided
below. The Committee recommendation for Other Defense
Activities (ODA) totals $814,000,000, $28,980,000 above fiscal
year 2011 and $45,952,000 below the budget request. After
accounting for a one-time rescission of $3,400,000 in fiscal
year 2011, the recommendation is $25,580,000 above fiscal year
2011. No funds are provided as a new line for the Acquisition
Workforce Improvement initiative. Funds continue to be
appropriated for the acquisition workforce in existing
accounts.
health, safety, and security
The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) develops
programs and policies to protect the workers at the
Department's sites and facilities and the public, conducts
independent oversight of performance and security, and
integrates health, safety, and security policies across the
Department, among other related functions. The Committee
recommendation is $431,408,000, $4,475,000 above fiscal year
2011 and $25,074,000 below the budget request. The Committee
believes that having an independent assessment capability at
the Department is important and supports the role of HSS in the
areas of nuclear safety, worker safety and health, safeguards
and security, cyber security and emergency management. The
Committee agrees that the responsibility for protecting
workers, the public, the environment and national security
assets rests with the Department's line management
organizations. However, it is critical that the Department
preserve the HSS authority to independently assess Departmental
compliance and performance, and to have access to and
cooperation from all Departmental programs and facilities.
With the number of major facilities under construction, it
is particularly important that HSS fulfill its role to perform
assessments on new facility designs. Because of the one of a
kind nature of these facilities and the specialized technical
expertise required to evaluate designs, the Committee
encourages HSS to further develop its human capital base to
ensure there are sufficient personnel with appropriate
technical skills. The Committee notes the significant growth in
the request for support services in its program direction line.
While the use of support service contractors may be a practical
and cost-effective way to augment personnel needs and provide
specialized skills over a limited time period, HSS should focus
more on building a core of personnel with the desired skills to
maintain organizational knowledge and save costs over the long
term.
Annual Report on Independent Oversight Activities.--The
Committee expects the Department to provide an annual report on
the independent oversight activities of HSS, including progress
on transforming the organization and building appropriate skill
sets within the organization. The report should also clearly
identify any gaps in its capabilities for conducting effective
oversight.
office of legacy management
The Office of Legacy Management provides long-term
stewardship following site closure. The Committee recommends
$167,100,000 for Legacy Management, $4,521,000 below fiscal
year 2011 and $3,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee directs that all documentation relating to
Yucca Mountain, including technical information, records, and
other documents, as well as scientific data and physical
materials, be preserved.
defense-related activities at idaho national laboratory
The Committee recommendation includes $93,350,000,
$15,800,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $5,150,000 below the
budget request, to fund defense-related activities at Idaho
National Laboratory.
defense-related administrative support
The Committee recommendation includes $118,000,000,
$11,760,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $836,000 below the
budget request, to provide administrative support for programs
funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts,
including Departmental activities performed by offices
including the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under
Secretaries, the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer,
Human Resources, Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs,
which support the organizations and activities funded in the
environmental and other 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 recommendation is $4,142,000, $1,934,000 below fiscal
year 2011 and the same as the budget request.
acquisition workforce improvement
The Committee recommendation supports the improvement of
the Department's acquisition and contracting workforce within
the program offices and within the Office of Management. The
Administration did not submit a comprehensive plan to justify a
new, stand-alone initiative. Therefore, the Committee
recommendation includes no funding for the acquisition
workforce improvement initiative under Other Defense
Activities, $11,892,000 below the budget request. The Committee
fully supports a robust acquisition and contracting workforce
and will work with the Department to provide program direction
funding under the appropriate accounts to ensure proper
oversight of the acquisition process.
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. Further, all power marketing administrations
except the Bonneville Power Administration are funded annually
with appropriations. 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.
Bonneville Power Administration Fund
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets the power from federal hydropower projects
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-federal generating
facilities in the region, and exchanges and markets surplus
power with Canada and California. Language is included to allow
expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund for
the Kootenai River Native Fish Conservation Aquaculture
Program, Lolo Creek Permanent Weir Facility, and Improving
Anadromous Fish production on the Warm Springs Reservation.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2011................................... $--
Budget estimate, 2012................................. --
Recommended, 2012..................................... --
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... --
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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 2012 is
$123,298,000, with $114,870,000 for purchase power and wheeling
and $8,428,000 for program direction. The purchase power and
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $100,162,000,
and annual expenses will be offset by collections of $8,428,000
provided in this Act. Additionally, SEPA has identified
$14,708,000 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, 2011................................... $13,050,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 11,892,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 11,892,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -1,158,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
The Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) markets
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Texas. SWPA operates and maintains 1,380 miles of
transmission lines, along with supporting substations and
communications sites.
The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power
Administration is a net appropriation of $11,892,000, equal to
the budget request. The total program level for Southwestern in
fiscal year 2012 is $107,007,000, including $14,346,000 for
operation and maintenance expenses, $50,000,000 for purchase
power and wheeling, $31,889,000 for program direction, and
$10,772,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total
$73,118,000, including $40,000,000 for purchase power and
wheeling, $25,687,000 for program direction, and $7,431,000 for
operation and maintenance. Southwestern estimates it will
secure alternative financing from customers in the amount of
$21,997,000.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
Appropriation, 2011................................... $108,963,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 95,968,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 95,968,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -12,995,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles
long. Western provides electricity to 15 western states over a
service area of 1.3 million square miles.
The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power
Administration is a net appropriation of $95,968,000, equal to
the budget request. The total program level for Western in
fiscal year 2012 is $863,469,000, which includes $110,449,000
for construction and rehabilitation, $72,863,000 for system
operation and maintenance, $471,535,000 for purchase power and
wheeling, $205,247,000 for program direction, and $3,375,000
for the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund.
Offsetting collections include $496,473,000 for purchase
power and wheeling and annual expenses, and the use of
$4,821,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River
Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98-381). The inclusion of
$266,207,000 of alternative financing identified by the Western
Area Marketing Administration yields a net appropriation of
$95,968,000.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
Appropriation, 2011................................... $220,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 220,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 220,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... --
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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 Committee recommendation is a net appropriation of
$220,000, the same as the budget request. The total program
level is $4,169,000, with $3,949,000 of offsetting collections
applied toward annual expenses.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2011................................... $298,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 304,600,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 304,600,000
Comparison
Appropriation, 2011............................... +6,600,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2011................................... -$298,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. -304,600,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... -304,600,000
Comparison
Appropriation, 2011............................... -6,600,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $304,600,000, $6,600,000 above
fiscal year 2011 and 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.
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 transfers of funds)
The bill contains a provision prohibiting the use of funds
for new programs or to prepare or initiate requests for
proposals or other solicitations or arrangements, or for
programs that have not yet been fully funded by the Congress;
and providing that none of the funds may be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
except in certain circumstances.
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of
funds in this title to augment funding made available for
severance payments, other benefits, or community assistance
grants for employees of the Department of Energy, or to develop
or implement a workforce restructuring plan that covers
Department employees.
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 restricting certain
Bonneville Power Administration activities.
The bill continues a provision directing the governance of
user facilities.
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 establishes certain
limitations and requirements with respect to the transfer of
funds by the Secretary of Energy to reimburse the costs of
defined benefits pension plans for contractor employees.
The bill contains a provision that prohibits the use of
funds in this title for capital construction of high hazard
nuclear facilities, unless certain independent oversight is
conducted.
The bill contains a provision establishing estimated cost
parameters for plant and construction activities for the
purposes of sections 4703 and 4704 of the Atomic Energy Defense
Act.
The bill contains 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 that establishes certain
notification requirements that must be fulfilled before any
funds in this title may be used to make certain awards,
allocations, agreements, or public announcements.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting the use of funds
to make a conditional loan guarantee award unless the Secretary
of Energy notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives at least three full
business days in advance of such award.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting the Department of
Energy from enforcing any significant regulatory actions
without providing 30 days notice to the Committee on
Appropriations.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2011................................... $68,263,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 76,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 68,400,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +137,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -7,600,000
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional
economic development agency established in 1965. It is
comprised of the governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a
federal co-chair appointed by the President. The Committee
recommendation for the ARC is $68,400,000, $137,000 above
fiscal year 2011 and $7,600,000 below the budget request.
The ARC targets 50 percent of its funds to distressed
counties or distressed areas in the Appalachian region. The
Committee continues to believe this should be the primary focus
of the ARC.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Appropriation, 2011................................... $23,203,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 29,130,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 29,130,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +5,927,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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 the Department of Energy's
decommissioning of 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 2012 is
$29,130,000, $5,927,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as
the request.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriation, 2011................................... $11,677,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 13,000,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 11,700,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +23,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -1,300,000
The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state
partnership serving 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 2012 the Committee recommends $11,700,000,
$23,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $1,300,000 below the
request.
Denali Commission
Appropriation, 2011................................... -$4,321,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 11,965,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 10,700,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +15,021,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -1,265,000
The Denali Commission is a regional development agency
established in 1998 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
2012, the Committee recommends $10,700,000, $15,021,000 above
fiscal year 2011 and $1,265,000 below the budget request. After
accounting for a one-time rescission of $15,000,000 in fiscal
year 2011, the recommendation is $21,000 above fiscal year
2011.
Northern Border Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2011................................... $1,497,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 1,500,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 1,350,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -147,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. -150,000
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. In the current fiscal year,
the NBRC's federal co-chair has taken preliminary steps to
begin operations of the new Commission. The Committee has
continued legislative language addressing the Commission's
administrative expenses.
The Committee recommends $1,350,000 to support the
Commission's activities in fiscal year 2012, $147,000 below
fiscal year 2011 and $150,000 below the budget request.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2011................................... $250,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. --
Recommended, 2012..................................... 250,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... --
Budget estimate, 2012............................. +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 southeastern United States not already served by a
regional development agency.
The Committee recommends $250,000 for operations of the
commission in fiscal year 2012, the same as fiscal year 2011
and $250,000 above the budget request.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2011................................... $1,043,208,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 1,027,240,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 1,027,240,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -15,968,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2011................................... -$906,220,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. -899,726,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... -890,713,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +15,507,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. +9,013,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2011................................... $136,988,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 127,514,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 136,527,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -461,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. +9,013,000
The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2012 is
$1,027,240,000, $15,968,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same
as the request. The total amount of budget authority is offset
by estimated revenues of $890,713,000, $15,507,000 less than
fiscal year 2011 and $9,013,000 less than the request.
Including revenues, the net appropriation for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is $136,527,000.
The recommendation includes $10,000,000 to be derived from
the Nuclear Waste Fund, $10,000,000 above the request. This
funding may only be used to continue the Yucca Mountain license
application. A general provision is included to prohibit any
funding in this bill from being used to bring the Yucca
Mountain license application to a close until the Commission
reverses the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decision LBP-10-
11. In addition, to improve consistency across accounts the
Committee has established the salaries and other support costs
of the Commissioners in legislative language. Further, the
Committee carries language limiting the circumstances under
which the NRC may reprogram funds.
In order to improve transparency and accountability to the
taxpayer, the Committee has determined that the NRC's program
lines will serve as control points for reprogramming
notifications, as shown in the following table.
The Committee recommendation will support the following
activities:
Nuclear Reactor Safety................................ $796,800,000
Operating Reactors................................ 521,300,000
New Reactors...................................... 275,500,000
Nuclear Materials & Waste Safety...................... 230,440,000
Fuel Facilities................................... 55,200,000
Nuclear Materials Users........................... 92,100,000
Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation............. 35,240,000
Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste............... 37,900,000
High-Level Waste Repository....................... 10,000,000
The United States has relied on the NRC to ensure the
protection of the health, safety and security of the public and
the environment. Throughout its history, the agency has
conducted this work in an independent and professional manner
and has thus enjoyed the strong and consistent support of the
Congress and the trust of the general public. At no time has
the need for such an agency, with such a reputation, been more
important. The NRC must be able to continue to work
effectively, and apolitically, to provide the public assurance
that our nuclear plants, current and future, are safe and
effective.
However, in recent months, the Committee has become aware
of issues that may be impacting the ability of the agency to
function as intended by the Congress. By law, the Commission,
headed by the Chairman, is charged with leading the agency on a
collegial basis. Recent reports suggest that significant issues
are not being decided by the Commission in the manner expected
by the Congress and required by law--in some cases because the
agency's technical staff have been impeded from presenting
issues for Commission review. There have also been suggestions
that the work of the agency may have been influenced
inappropriately by political considerations.
Given the heavy workload of the agency and the need to
assure its proper functioning in the face of the nation's
continuing and growing need for safe and reliable nuclear
energy, the Committee finds these reports very troubling. As
the head of the Commission, the Chairman has the responsibility
to take whatever actions are necessary to remedy any appearance
of partisanship or political interference in regulatory
matters.
The Yucca Mountain license application, and the Chairman's
unilateral use of ``administrative means'' to halt its
consideration, are at the heart of this debate. The Congress
has been clear both through legislation and through repeated
votes that the Yucca Mountain license application process
should be completed. The bill includes language to curb the use
of ``administrative means'' to terminate programs.
Small Modular Reactors.--The Committee expects the NRC to
engage the Department of Energy on small modular reactors as
the Department begins its engineering support program for the
licensing of two small modular reactor designs. Through
cooperation and active engagement, the NRC can help ensure that
technical issues involved in licensing can be identified and
resolved as early as possible.
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 will 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.
Committee is encouraged by the ongoing pre-application
activities for licensing of advanced reactors. The Committee
requests that NRC submit a report no later than June 30, 2012
that includes the following as a minimum: 1) the anticipated
advanced reactor licensing scope over the next one to two
decades; 2) the overall R ` D activities that should be
conducted to support NRC reviews in anticipation of the
advanced reactor licensing scope, including updating and
extending national consensus standards; 3) the projected
resource requirements for both experienced personnel and
development facilities to support NRC for the anticipated scope
of advanced reactor licensing; and 4) the overall plan for
using and sharing the limited resources between industry and
government including use of the facilities and personnel at the
National Laboratories and elsewhere within government and
within industry.
Office of Inspector General
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2011................................... $10,858,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 10,860,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 10,860,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +2,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2011................................... -$9,774,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. -9,774,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... -9,774,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... --
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2011................................... $1,084,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 1,086,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 1,086,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... +2,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,860,000,
$2,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget
request. Given the formula for fee recovery, the revenue
estimate is $9,774,000, resulting in a net appropriation for
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General of
$1,086,000.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriation, 2011................................... $3,883,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 3,400,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 3,400,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -483,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) was
established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Committee expects the NWTRB to be actively engaged with the
Department, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
Future, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on issues
involving nuclear waste disposal. The NWTRB should also provide
support to the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's efforts to archive and preserve all Yucca
Mountain-related documents and physical materials of scientific
value.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,400,000 for
the NWTRB in fiscal year 2012, $483,000 below fiscal year 2011
and the same as the budget request.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects
Appropriation, 2011................................... $4,457,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................. 4,032,000
Recommended, 2012..................................... 4,032,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2011............................... -425,000
Budget estimate, 2012............................. --
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. The Federal
Coordinator is responsible for coordinating local, federal, and
international activities for a natural gas transportation
project, including facilitating the permitting process, as well
as joint surveillance and monitoring of construction with the
State of Alaska. A North American natural gas pipeline would be
an important step towards energy independence for the United
States, as it could deliver significant domestic natural gas
supply to the lower 48 states.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,032,000 to
support the activities of this office in fiscal year 2012,
$425,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget
request.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Established in 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
was created as a Government-owned corporation for the
coordinated development of water and power programs among seven
states in the Tennessee Valley. The TVA finances its program
primarily from proceeds available from current power operations
and borrowings against future power revenues.
NNSA Tritium Program.--The Committee directs the Tennessee
Valley Authority to bill the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) on a quarterly basis for the work
supporting the NNSA's tritium program.
Reports.--The Committee directs the Inspector General to
forward copies of all audit and inspection reports to the
Committee immediately after they are issued, and immediately
make the Committee aware of any review that recommends
cancellation of, or modification to, any major acquisition
project or grant, or which recommends significant budgetary
savings. The Inspector General is also directed to withhold
from public distribution for a period of 15 days any final
audit or investigation report that was requested by the House
Committee on Appropriations.
GENERAL PROVISION, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
The bill contains a provision regarding the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission that prohibits the obligation or
expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of funds in this
title except in certain circumstances.
TITLE V--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF
(including transfers and rescission of funds)
The Committee recommends $376,000 for ``Army Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Construction'' to repair damages caused by
the storm and flood events occurring in 2011.
The Committee recommends $589,505,000 for ``Army Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Mississippi River and Tributaries'' to repair
damages caused by the storm and flood events occurring in 2011.
The Committee recommends $204,927,000 for ``Army Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Operation and Maintenance'' to repair damages
caused by the storm and flood events occurring in 2011.
The Committee recommends $233,876,400 for ``Army Corps of
Engineers--Civil, Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies'' to
repair damages caused by the storm and flood events occurring
in 2011.
Beginning not later than one week after enactment of this
Act, the Chief of Engineers shall provide a weekly report
detailing the allocation and obligation of these funds to the
Committees on Appropriation of the House of Representatives and
the Senate.
Funds for the Army Corps of Engineers in this section are
made available by transfer from emergency funds appropriated
for ``Department of Transportation--Federal Railroad
Administration--Capital Assistance for High Speed Rail
Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service'' by title XII
of Public Law 111-5. Remaining funds in excess of those
transferred are rescinded.
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of
funds provided in this Act to, in any way, directly or
indirectly, to 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 that prohibits the transfer
of funds provided in this Act to any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government, except
pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided
in this Act or any other Act.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds in this Act
to be provided in contravention of section 6(b) of the Iran
Sanctions Act.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds in this
bill from being used to close the Yucca Mountain license
application process until a specific condition is met or for
actions that would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain
might be an option in the future.
The bill contains a provision requiring new federal hires
to be vetted through the E-Verify Program.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds for
contracts or agreements with entities with unpaid Federal tax
liabilities that have not entered into payment agreements to
remedy the liability.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting the government
from entering into contracts or agreements with any corporation
that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any
Federal law within the preceding 24 months.
The bill contains 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.
Constitutional Authority
Pursuant to Section 6(e) of the rules of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the following
statement is submitted regarding the specific powers granted to
the Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill
or joint resolution.
The principal constitutional authority for this legislation
is clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of
the United States (the appropriation power), which states: No
Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law . . . .'' In addition, clause 1 of
section 8 of article I of the Constitution (the spending power)
provides: ``The Congress shall have the Power . . . to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of
the United States . . . .'' Together, these specific
constitutional provisions establish the congressional power of
the purse, granting the Congress the authority to appropriate
funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period of
availability, and to set forth terms and conditions governing
their use.
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 108, ``General Provisions, Corps of
Engineers--Civil'', up to $100,000,000 of ``Flood Control and
Coastal Emergencies'' funding appropriated in Public Law 109-
234 and Public Law 110-252, and up to $75,000,000 of funding
under the same heading appropriated in Public Law 110-28 and
Public Law 110-329, may be transferred to the Construction'
account, consistent with cost share requirements.
Under section 108, ``General Provisions, Corps of
Engineers--Civil'', up to $3,800,000 of funds under the heading
`Operation and Maintenance' may be transferred to the Fish and
Wildlife Service to mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps
projects.
TITLE II--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Under ``Water and Related Resources'', $10,698,000 is
available for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund
and $6,136,000 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 303, `General Provisions--Department of
Energy', unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided
for activities in this Act may be transferred to appropriation
accounts for such activities established pursuant to this
title. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the
applicable established accounts and thereafter may be accounted
for as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.
Under section 308, `General Provisions--Department of
Energy', the Secretary of Energy may transfer up to one percent
of specific appropriations to cover additional requirements for
the Department's pension obligations.
TITLE V--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF
Funds for the Army Corps of Engineers in the amount of
$1,028,684,400 are made available by transfer from emergency
funds appropriated for ``Department of Transportation--Federal
Railroad Administration--Capital Assistance for High Speed Rail
Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service'' by title XII
of Public Law 111-5.
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,
Investigations, stating that amounts for projects and
activities be expended as specified in the text and tables in
the accompanying report.
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,
Construction, rescinding prior-year funds that were not
designated by the Congress as emergency funding.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Construction, stating that amounts for projects and activities
be expended as specified in the text and tables in the
accompanying report.
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 Corps of Engineers,
Mississippi River and Tributaries, stating that amounts for
projects and activities be expended as specified in the text
and tables in the accompanying report.
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,
Operation and Maintenance, stating that amounts for projects
and activities be expended as specified in the text and tables
in the accompanying report.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support
Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the
Engineer Research and Development Center, and the Finance
Center.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, providing that funds are available for official
reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this
Act for the activities funded in Expenses.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency
appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other
activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural
disaster.
Language has been included to provide for funding for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase and hire
of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the
funds may be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the use of funds
provided under this Act or previous Acts for implementation of
A-76 or High Performing Organizations competitive sourcing
actions.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 103, 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 104, prohibiting the award of a
continuing contract for any project funded out of the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 105, regarding submission of the
Chief of Engineers Report to congressional committees.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 106, requiring the Secretary of the
Army to implement measures to prevent aquatic nuisance species
from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic
connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River
Basin.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 107, providing for transfer
authority to the Construction account for specific projects.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 108, 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 109, prohibiting funds from being
used to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction
under the Clean Water Act.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 110, prohibiting funds from being
used to relocate, or study the relocation of, any regional
division headquarters located at a military installation.
Language has been provided under Corps of Engineers,
General Provisions, section 111, expanding existing
authorization to receive and use funds provided by non-federal
sponsors and requiring congressional notification of use of
such authority.
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; 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; 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. 4601-6a(i); that funds contributed
under 43 U.S.C. 395 shall be available for expenditure; and
that funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a for operation and
maintenance of reclamation facilities 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, stating that amounts for projects
and activities be expended as specific in the text and tables
in the accompanying report.
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; making the use
of any funds provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for
program-wide management and oversight activities subject to the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior; 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.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase of motor
vehicles for replacement.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
General Provisions, 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, permanently rescinding
mandatory funds from the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.
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 Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy waiving the allocation formula for the
weatherization assistance program.
Language has been included under Electricity Distribution
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 inquiries, technological investigations, and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social and
environmental cost under chapter 240; 30 U.S.C. 3 and 30 U.S.C.
1602 and 1603.
Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and
Development, providing for the vesting of fee title or other
real property interests acquired under project in any entity,
including the United States.
Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and
Oil Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances.
Language has been included under SPR Petroleum Account
regarding the sale of petroleum products and the use of
unobligated balances.
Language has been included under SPR Petroleum Account
prohibiting the use of royalty-in-kind authority for the
purpose of refilling the Reserve from the sale authorized in
this Act.
Language has been included under Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve rescinding funds associated with the sale of petroleum
distillates and limiting the size of the Reserve.
Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment.
Language has been included under the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund limiting the amount
that may be derived from certain types of barter, transfer or
sale of uranium.
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
providing funds to carry out the purposes of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section
1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in an amount equal to
the appropriated amount as offsetting collections to this
account and making fees collected under section 1702(h) in
excess of the appropriated amount unavailable for expenditure
until appropriated.
Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program providing funds for the cost of loan
guarantees under section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
and regarding the availability of these funds to certain
submitted projects.
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. This language has
been carried in prior appropriations Acts.
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. This language has been carried in prior
appropriations Acts.
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 Weapons Activities
withholding funds until certain reporting requirements
regarding the B-61 Life Extension Program are met.
Language has been included under Weapons Activities
rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress as
emergency funding.
Language has been included under Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation 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 rescinding funds that were not designated by
the Congress as emergency funding.
Language has been included under the Office of the
Administrator providing funding for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Defense Environmental
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor
vehicles.
Language has been included under Other Defense Activities
for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and
capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
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 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 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 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
for new programs or to prepare or initiate requests for
proposals or other solicitations or arrangements, or for
programs that have not yet been fully funded by the Congress;
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, prohibiting the use of funds
to augment funding made available for severance payments or
other benefits or community assistance grants for employees of
the Department of Energy, or to develop or implement a
workforce restructuring plan that covers Department employees.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 303, 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 304, prohibiting the Administrator
of the Bonneville Power Administration from entering into
certain agreements to perform energy efficiency services
outside the Administration's territory.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 305, requiring public notice of the
availability of user facilities and full and open competition
for the use of such facilities.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 306, 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 2012 until enactment of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 307, establishing certain
limitations and requirements with respect to the transfer of
funds by the Secretary of Energy to reimburse the costs of
defined benefits pension plans for contractor employees.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 308, 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 309, establishing estimated cost
parameters for plant and construction activities for the
purposes of sections 4703 and 4704 Atomic Energy Defense Act.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 310, 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 311, establishing certain
notification requirements that must be fulfilled before any
funds in this title may be used to make certain awards,
allocations, agreements, or public announcements.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 312, prohibiting the use of funds
to make a final or conditional loan guarantee award unless the
Secretary of Energy notifies the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives at least three
full business days in advance of such award.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, section 313, prohibiting the Department of
Energy from enforcing any significant regulatory actions
without providing notification.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Language has been included under Appalachian Regional
Commission providing for the hire of passenger vehicles.
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).
Language has been included under Northern Border Regional
Commission for expenditure as authorized by subtitle V of title
40, Untied States Code, without regard to section 15751(b).
Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for salaries
and other support costs for the Office of the Commission.
Additional language provides for official representation
expenses; derives funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund; and
permits the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections
services, and other services for salaries and expenses. Funding
is provided to support university research and development, and
for a Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program. The
appropriations language for this account reflects the total
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are
received.
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. The appropriations language for this account reflects
the total estimated program funding to be reduced 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 amounts specified unavailable for
obligation until appropriated.
Language has been included under Independent Agencies,
General Provisions, section 401, establishing reprogramming
requirements for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
TITLE V--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF
Language has been included rescinding funds made available
in title XII of Public Law 111-5 for high speed rail.
Language has been included transferring funds made
available in title XII of Public Law 111-5 for high speed rail
to specific accounts of the Corps of Engineers--Civil for
emergency storm and flood damages.
Language has been included requiring a weekly report on
allocation and obligation of funds.
Language has been included providing that amounts
transferred under this heading are designated as an emergency
requirement.
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 601, 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 602, prohibiting the transfer of funds except pursuant
to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in this
or any other Act.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 603, prohibiting funds in this Act to be provided in
contravention of section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 604, prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to
close the Yucca Mountain license application process until a
specific condition is met, 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 605, requiring new federal hires to be vetted through
the E-Verify Program.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 606, prohibiting funds for contracts or agreements with
entities with unpaid Federal tax liabilities that have not
entered into payment agreements to remedy the liability.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 607, prohibiting the government from entering into
contracts or agreements with any corporation that was convicted
of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the
preceding 24 months.
Language has been included under General Provisions,
section 608, 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.
Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 22, 1936
AN ACT Authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers
and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes.
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1936
Sec. 5. That pursuant to the policy outlined in sections 1
and 3, the following works of improvement, for the benefit of
navigation and the control of destructive flood waters and
other purposes, are hereby adopted and authorized to be
prosecuted, in order of their emergency as may be designated by
the President, under the direction of the Secretary of War and
supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accordance with the
plans in the respective reports and records hereinafter
designated: Provided, That penstocks or other similar
facilities, adapted to possible future use in the development
of adequate electric power may be installed in any dam herein
authorized when approved by the Secretary of War upon the
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. Provided further,
That the Secretary of War is authorized to receive from States
and political subdivisions thereof, such funds as may be
contributed by them for work, which includes planning and
design, to be expended in connection with funds appropriated by
the United States for any authorized [flood control or
environmental restoration work] water resources development
study or project whenever such work and expenditure may be
considered by the Secretary of War, on recommendation of the
Chief of Engineers, as advantageous in the public interest, and
the plans for any reservoir project may, in the discretion of
the Secretary of War, on recommendation of the Chief of
Engineers, be modified to provide additional storage capacity
for domestic water supply or other conservation storage, on
condition that the cost of such increased storage capacity is
contributed by local agencies and that the local agencies agree
to utilize such additional storage capacity in a manner
consistent with Federal uses and purposes: And provided
further, That when contributions made by States and political
subdivisions thereof, are in excess of the actual cost of the
work contemplated and properly chargeable to such
contributions, such excess contributions may, with the approval
of the Secretary of War, be returned to the proper
representatives of the contributing interests: Provided
further, That the term ``States'' means the several States, the
District of Columbia, the commonwealths, territories, and
possessions of the United States, and Federally recognized
Indian tribes.
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:
[thousand dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation in
Agency/Program Last Year of Authorization Last Year of Appropriation
Authorization Level Authorization in this Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps FUSRAP..................................... (\1\) 109,000
EERE Program Direction........................... 2006 110,500 164,198 110,000
Legacy Management................................ 2004 29,547 29,705 167,100
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.......... 2011 28,640 23,203 29,130
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves........... 2011 23,614 20,854 14,909
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup:
West Valley Demonstration.................... 1981 5,000 5,000 56,900
Departmental Administration...................... 1984 246,963 185,682 109,631
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities....................... 2011 7,028,835 6,896,398 7,091,661
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation......... 2011 2,667,167 2,273,653 2,056,770
Naval Reactors........................... 2011 1,070,486 959,176 1,030,600
Office of the Administrator.............. 2011 448,267 393,293 420,000
Defense Environmental Cleanup.................... 2011 5,588,039 4,979,738 4,937,619
Other Defense Activities......................... 2011 878,209 785,020 814,000
Power Marketing Administrations:
Southwestern................................. 1984 40,254 36,229 11,892
Western Area................................. 1984 259,700 194,630 95,968
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................... 1985 460,000 448,200 137,613
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization
Rescissions
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
bill:
Department or Activity Amount
Corps of Engineers: Construction.............................$50,000,000
Bureau of Reclamation: San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.....66,000,000
Department of Energy: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.....100,000,000
Department of Energy: Weapons Activities......................40,332,000
Department of Energy: Nonproliferation........................30,000,000
Department of Transportation: Federal Railroad Administration
(emergency)..............................................471,316,000
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.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF FY 2012 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill\1\
---------------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees: Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development:
Discretionary........................................... 30,639 44,577 30,639 \1\44,577
Mandatory............................................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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:
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2012...................................................... \2\18,239
2013...................................................... 8,887
2014...................................................... 2,859
2015...................................................... 470
2016 and future years..................................... 158
\2\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.............................................. 84
Outlays....................................................... \3\18
\3\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote
on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the
names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed
below:
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF NORM DICKS AND
PETER VISCLOSKY
We commend Chairman Rogers and Chairman Frelinghuysen for
their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The
bill funds critical water resource projects, supports science
activities necessary to 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
Frelinghuysen has worked hard to incorporate the interests of
Members from both parties.
The Subcommittee's allocation is $30,600,000,000, a
decrease of $5,901,082,000 from the Administration's budget
request and $1,043,303,000 below the 2011 level. This
allocation has necessitated severe cuts to crucial programs.
While we truly appreciate the Chairman's considerable efforts
and recognize that difficult choices must be made to address
the nation's serious financial situation, this bill starkly
illustrates the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by
the House budget. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply
insufficient to meet the challenges posed by the economic
downturn and to guarantee our national security.
The cut-at-any-cost ideology has severely hindered our
Committee's ability to produce bills that adhere to principles
of good governance. This bill contains inadequate funding
levels for energy efficiency initiatives, the Army Corps and
environmental cleanup, to name a few. These decisions sacrifice
long-term investment needs for short-term gain. In 2005, when
flooding devastated the city of New Orleans, the message was
loud and clear: going forward we must protect vulnerable areas
with sound infrastructure investments or risk greater
humanitarian and fiscal repercussions. Since then, we've spent
nearly the equivalent of three times the annual appropriation
for the Corps rebuilding New Orleans. We did not make the
proper initial investments and should have learned from that
mistake. The funds needed to protect our communities and
prepare for the future would be even further delayed under this
bill.
We commend the Chairman for increasing Corps funding by
$195 million above the President's request, ensuring that some
ongoing projects will not be terminated. We must invest in our
infrastructure, and, even with the additional funds, the bill
provides $89 million less than 2011 and $677 million less than
FY 2010. Our ports, harbors, navigational channels, and locks
continue to provide the foundation for long-term economic
growth. At this funding level, we are not close to addressing
the dredging backlog that plagues waterborne commerce in the
United States. Currently, for the top 59 ports in the U.S., the
Corps is only able to maintain authorized depths within the
middle half of the channel, one third of the time. Every day,
this costs companies that rely on these ports and it serves as
a major impediment to expanding their workforce. This is merely
one of the reasons why, in 2009, the American Society of
Engineers gave our nation's dams, levees, and inland waterways
grades of D or D-.
We support and appreciate the inclusion of emergency
funding to respond to the historic flooding in the Mississippi
and Missouri Rivers. Communities devastated by natural
disasters deserve our full support. We are, however,
disappointed that the Chairman chose to offset this funding by
withdrawing critical support from high speed rail projects.
We disagree with the notion that all funding for domestic
emergency response should be offset immediately. In every year
except two, since 1997, the Congress has recognized the need
for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of natural
disasters on the nation's water resource infrastructure. Since
2001, the Congress has provided more than $24 billion to the
Corps for this purpose. Leaving out the enormous cost of
reconstruction of New Orleans and the surrounding area, nearly
$5 billion was provided in that time frame for emergencies
stemming from flooding. As we debate the long-term trajectory
of taxes and spending in this nation, we cannot forgo actions
necessary for the security and safety of our citizens. Yes, we
must make difficult decisions that will impact the future of
this nation, but we cannot allow those decisions to fall on the
backs of those who have already suffered. Our country has
rightly provided funding on an emergency basis for construction
projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should have the fortitude
to do the same to protect our citizens at home.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the
cost of the Frelinghuysen amendment to provide this funding was
offset only in terms of budget authority (that is, authority to
spend), but not in terms of actual outlays. This is because CBO
expects that outlays from the new budget authority provided by
the amendment will far exceed outlays that would have resulted
from the budget authority it rescinds. In fact, CBO estimates
that the amendment increases outlays resulting from the bill by
a total of $1,029,000,000 over 10 years.
The bill continues the Subcommittee's efforts over the
years to improve program and project management at all of the
agencies under its jurisdiction, honing provisions carried in
the past and instituting others aimed at increased oversight.
For example, the bill includes a requirement that independent
cost estimates be completed at major milestones for projects
with a total cost in excess of $100 million. A recent review of
the Department's cleanup-related construction projects by the
Corps of Engineers paints a bleak picture of the management
system and casts doubt on recent reforms intended to move the
Department off the Government Accountability Office's High Risk
List, a list the Department has been on for the past 21 years.
The Chairman has included a number of reporting requirements
and statutory limitations that will contribute to increased
transparency and improved management. We strongly support the
Chairman's action.
The Science account, critical to the competitiveness of our
nation, is essentially the same as that of 2011, not an
insignificant achievement in light of the challenge this
allocation provided. The bill also provides funds for the
continuation of a promising new program, ARPA-E; that can also
drive innovations to support our scientific competitiveness.
While the bill includes appropriate funding for fossil and
nuclear energy, we are disappointed that renewable energy
programs in this bill are drastically reduced. We can debate
whether our dependency on imported oil and other carbon fuels
is an environmental problem or an economic problem. Either way,
it clearly is a national security problem given the source of
so much of our energy. We must expand the mix of our energy
supply, we must use the energy supply we have more efficiently
and we must transport it more efficiently. We have to make an
investment to do that. We do not believe the allocation allows
for the support necessary to advance our efforts on this front.
Restoring the United States to a position of global
leadership in clean energy is a critical national priority,
with implications for our economic competitiveness, national
security, and environmental legacy. This goal can only be
achieved through widespread and large-scale deployment of clean
energy technologies. With private equity investment not yet at
pre-recession levels, we are pleased that the bill includes
funds for renewable energy loans. This funding will ensure that
companies who have spent millions in pursuit of a loan
guarantee have an avenue to get such a loan and to help move
our country toward a diversified energy portfolio in order to
encourage their development on a broader and much-needed scale.
We support the Chairman's decision to provide increases to
weapons and naval reactors only for the most critical of the
activities within these accounts. The bill also includes a
provision limiting the funds that can be spent on the B-61 life
extension program until the Administrator of Nuclear Security
submits the outcome of its Phase 6.2a design definition and
cost study. Given the fact that the B-61 will be the most
ambitious and extensive warhead refurbishment since the United
States first began producing life extended nuclear weapons in
1999 and the recent findings of the Government Accountability
Office questioning how the reliability of the weapon would be
impacted, the Chairman wisely proceeds with caution on the life
extension program.
We note that the Nonproliferation account is significantly
reduced by more than $460,000,000 from the request. This is on
top of the $360,000,000 cut from the request that was provided
in 2011. While we appreciate the Chairman's work to preserve
the most essential activities, the allocation results in a
reduction in efforts to secure dangerous material. While
nuclear material security spending was only about one-third of
one percent of the total defense budget last year, the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) secured 800 bombs' worth
of nuclear material in 2010. Since April 2009, NNSA has
overseen the removal of 120 bombs' worth of highly enriched
uranium from six countries, including the last bomb's worth of
material from Chile in the immediate aftermath of an
earthquake. This is a remarkable return on investment.
The proposed cut reduces our ability, in ways that may not
be immediately evident, to counter the most serious threat
confronting our national security: the threat of nuclear
terrorism. For example, cuts proposed in the reactor conversion
program will affect not only domestic reactor conversion, but
urgent worldwide efforts as well. In order to convince
countries to give up the Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)
associated with these reactors so it can be removed and
secured, the U.S. must continue to work with countries that
have already made political commitment, as well as set the
example by converting its own reactors. We have made
significant progress at home and abroad, but this program is a
key to removing HEU from a number of countries and to reducing
risk within our own borders. On domestic radiological source
recovery and security, NNSA has legislative authority for this
program and is doing an outstanding job working not only with
states, but coordinating with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The cuts to the Second Line of Defense
program will stop work in seven countries in high risk areas
for trafficking, including the Caucasus and Central Asia. This
program has provided equipment that has detected and supported
the interdiction of nuclear material in Georgia twice during
the past year. Continuing to work in these regions is
addressing a real security threat.
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.
Lastly, we commend Chairman Frelinghuysen for the decision
to provide funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
disposal project and for including the provision to prohibit
the use of funding to abandon the project. We agree that the
Administration's actions to close down the project run counter
to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Congress of 1982.
As this bill moves forward, we hope to work with the
majority to address these concerns.
Norm Dicks.
Pete Visclosky.