[Senate Report 112-164]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 383
112th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     112-164
======================================================================
 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013

                                _______
                                

                 April 26, 2012.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 2465]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2465) 
making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, 
and for other purposes, favorably thereon and recommends that 
the bill do pass.



New obligational authority

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $33,432,482,000
Amount of 2012 appropriations...........................  33,805,000,000
Amount of 2013 budget estimate..........................  33,684,037,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2012 appropriations.................................    -372,518,000
    2013 budget estimate................................    -251,555,000


                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Purpose..........................................................     4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations.........................     4
Title I:
    Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil:
            General Investigations...............................    19
            Construction, General................................    27
            Flood Control, Mississippi River, and Tributaries....    34
            Operation and Maintenance, General...................    36
            Regulatory Program...................................    52
            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program......    53
            Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................    53
            General Expenses.....................................    53
            Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 
              Works).............................................    54
            General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........    55
Title II:
    Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project Completion Account..................    57
        Bureau of Reclamation:
            Water and Related Resources..........................    59
            Central Valley Project Restoration Fund..............    66
            California Bay-Delta Restoration.....................    67
            Policy and Administration............................    67
            Indian Water Rights Settlements......................    67
            San Joaquin Restoration Fund.........................    67
        General Provisions--Department of the Interior...........    68
Title III:
    Department of Energy:
        Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy...................    72
        Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability..............    75
        Nuclear Energy...........................................    76
        Fossil Energy Research and Development...................    79
        Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves...................    80
        Elk Hills School Lands Fund..............................    80
        Strategic Petroleum Reserve..............................    80
        Strategic Petroleum Account..............................    80
        Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.......................    80
        Energy Information Administration........................    81
        Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup........................    81
        Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
          Fund...................................................    82
        Science..................................................    82
        Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy................    88
        Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program.............    89
        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program..    89
        Departmental Administration..............................    89
        Office of the Inspector General..........................    89
        Weapons Activities.......................................    93
        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.........................   100
        Naval Reactors...........................................   104
        Office of the Administrator..............................   104
        Defense Environmental Cleanup............................   105
        Other Defense Activities.................................   107
        Power Marketing Administrations:
            Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power 
              Administration.....................................   108
            Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power 
              Administration.....................................   108
            Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and 
              Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration.....   109
            Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund....   109
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and 
          Expenses...............................................   109
        General Provisions--Department of Energy.................   129
Title IV:
    Independent Agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission..........................   130
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board..................   130
        Delta Regional Authority.................................   130
        Denali Commission........................................   131
        Northern Border Regional Commission......................   131
        Southeast Crescent Regional Commission...................   131
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................   131
            Office of Inspector General..........................   131
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.....................   132
        Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 
          Transportation Projects................................   132
Title V: General Provisions......................................   133
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   134
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   134
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   135
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   144
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................   145

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2013 beginning October 1, 2012, and ending 
September 30, 2013, for energy and water development, and for 
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources 
development programs and related activities of the Department 
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the 
Department of Energy's energy research activities, including 
environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic 
energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration in title III; and for related independent 
agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.

                SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    The fiscal year 2013 budget estimates for the bill total 
$33,684,037,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $33,432,482,000. This is 
$251,555,000 below the budget estimates and $372,518,000 below 
the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

                         Subcommittee Hearings

    The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held 
three sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2013 
appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and 
representatives of the Federal agencies under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    The recommendations for fiscal year 2013 therefore, have 
been developed after careful consideration of available data.

                         Votes in the Committee

    By a vote of 28 to 1 the Committee on April 26, 2012, 
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the 
Senate.

                             Overhead Costs

    Federal agencies have been directed by Executive Order 
13589 to plan for reducing the combined costs of certain 
activities by not less than 20 percent below fiscal year 2010 
levels, in fiscal year 2013. The departments, agencies, boards, 
and commissions funded in this bill should continue to seek to 
reduce operating expenses by placing greater scrutiny on 
overhead costs. Savings may be achieved by reducing 
nonessential travel, office supply, rent, and utility costs. 
The Committee directs each department, agency, board, and 
commission funded in this bill to develop a plan to reduce such 
costs by at least 10 percent in fiscal year 2013. Plans to 
achieve these savings in fiscal year 2013 should be submitted 
to the Committee no later than 30 days after enactment of this 
act.

                              Conferences

    The head of any department, agency, board or commission 
funded by this act shall submit quarterly reports to the 
Inspector General, or the senior ethics official for any entity 
without an inspector general, of the appropriate department, 
agency, board or commission regarding the costs and contracting 
procedures relating to each conference held by the department, 
agency, board or commission during fiscal year 2013 for which 
the cost to the United States Government was more than $20,000. 
Such quarterly reports shall be available electronically for 
public access. No log-in shall be required to search or sort 
the data contained in such reports. The term ``conference'' 
means a meeting that (1) is held for consultation, education, 
awareness, or discussion; (2) involves costs associated with 
travel and lodging for some participants.
    Each report submitted shall include, for each conference 
held during the applicable quarter--
  --a description of the purpose of that conference;
  --the number of participants attending that conference;
  --a detailed statement of the costs to the United States 
        Government relating to that conference, including--
    --the cost of any food or beverages;
    --the cost of any audio-visual services; and
    --a discussion of the methodology used to determine which 
            costs relate to that conference; and
  --a description of the contracting procedures relating to 
        that conference, including--
    --whether contracts were awarded on a competitive basis for 
            that conference; and
    --a discussion of any cost comparison conducted by the 
            department, agency, board or commission in 
            evaluating potential contractors for that 
            conference.
    A grant or contract funded by amounts appropriated by this 
act may not be used for the purpose of defraying the costs of a 
conference that is not directly and programmatically related to 
the purpose for which the grant or contract was awarded, such 
as a banquet or conference held in connection with planning, 
training, assessment, review, or other routine purposes related 
to a project funded by the grant or contract.
    None of the funds made available in this act may be used to 
send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more than 50 
employees of a single department or agency, who are stationed 
in the United States, at any single international conference 
unless the department or agency head reports to the Committees 
on Appropriations at least 5 days in advance that such 
attendance is important to the national interest.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is made up of 
approximately 35,000 civilian and 650 military members that 
perform both military and Civil Works functions. The military 
and civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work 
hand in hand as leaders in engineering and environmental 
matters. The diverse workforce of biologists, engineers, 
geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers, and other 
professionals meets the demands of changing times and 
requirements as a vital part of America's Army.
    The Corps' mission is to provide quality, responsive 
engineering services to the Nation including:
  --Planning, designing, building, and operating water 
        resources and other Civil Works projects (Navigation, 
        Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster 
        Response, et cetera);
  --Designing and managing the construction of military 
        facilities for the Army and Air Force (Military 
        Construction); and
  --Providing design and construction management support for 
        other Defense and Federal agencies (Interagency and 
        International Services).
    The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works 
missions of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000 
civilians and about 290 military officers are responsible for 
this nationwide mission.
    While the Corps Civil Works programs impact all 50 States 
and virtually every citizen of our Nation, they are a 
relatively minor part of the Federal budget. Funding for the 
Corps comprises a little over 0.13 percent of the total Federal 
budget for fiscal year 2013.

      OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST

    The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Corps of 
Engineers is composed of $4,731,000,000 in new budget 
authority. This is a decrease of $271,000,000 from the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted amount exclusive of $1,724,000,000 in 
emergency funding.
    The tradition of this bill has been that virtually all 
funding for the Corps of Engineers is designated to specific 
studies/projects. The administration's budget request for 
fiscal year 2013 continues this tradition. The four major 
study/project accounts (General Investigations, Construction, 
General, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation and 
Maintenance) comprise $4,205,000,000 of the administration's 
overall budget request of $4,731,000,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers. Only $325,628,000 of the budget request in these 
four accounts is considered as programmatic funding or national 
programs. That is about 7.7 percent of the funding proposed in 
these accounts. The remainder of the $3,798,802,000 proposed in 
the four major accounts is divided among 914 individual line 
item studies or projects proposed by the administration. As the 
Corps of Engineers has no inherent programmatic authorities 
under which the organization was created, all of these 
individual studies, projects and programmatic authorities are 
specifically authorized by Congress and specifically funded 
through appropriations acts.
    This Committee continues to believe that Members of 
Congress are best positioned to know the unique needs of their 
individual States and Congressional Districts. In past years, 
Congress, exercising their prerogatives under the Constitution 
would have added projects and studies to the administration's 
request to ensure that the Nation's water resource needs were 
met. As the four major study/project accounts in the Corps are 
comprised of individual line items of studies or projects, the 
Committee usually added line items for studies or projects that 
were not included in the administration's budget request or, 
alternatively, increased funding to items requested by the 
administration to accelerate the project delivery process on 
those items.
    The line items that were added by Congress in previous 
years were authorized and vetted in a public process identical 
to those line items that the administration included in their 
request. The difference between the items added by Congress and 
those included by the administration is that the administration 
applied a number of supplemental criterion for budgeting a 
study or project that the authorizations for these studies or 
projects does not require. Establishment of budget criteria 
was, and continues to be, an administrative prerogative. It 
should be understood that this criteria is established not 
necessarily to meet the Nation's water resource needs, but 
rather to help the administration decide which needs they 
choose to include in their budget request. These are choices 
made by the administration within the context of their 
priorities. History has shown that this criteria is extremely 
flexible depending on what an administration wants to fund in a 
given year. This Committee does not believe that this budget 
criteria, established by the administration without input from 
the public or Congress, has any more validity than the criteria 
that the Congress has used in the past to decide which projects 
to fund.
    Due to the vagaries of the administration's budget 
criteria, the Congress has provided the consistency in funding 
for items within the Corps of Engineers budget. Corps of 
Engineers projects generally have two definitive points where 
Congress can decide the Federal commitment to a water resources 
development project. The first point is when an item is being 
studied. By providing the initial study funding, the Congress 
is making a tacit commitment that it intends to see the study 
process through to completion. By the same token when a project 
is authorized for construction and receives its initial 
construction funding, that is a commitment that the Congress 
intends to see the project through to completion. That is why 
so few ``new'' studies and projects have been funded in recent 
years. Congress has acknowledged the tight fiscal environment 
by not creating tremendous outyear obligations for the Corps 
with new work.
    Nearly all Corps studies and projects are cost shared. That 
means a local sponsor has contractually agreed to provide a 
proportionate non-Federal share (ranging from 25 percent-50 
percent) to match the Federal funds appropriated. When these 
projects are not provided funding either through the budget or 
an appropriations act, the work is deferred until funding is 
appropriated. This inconsistent funding increases project 
costs, defers the projects benefits to the national economy and 
plays havoc with the non-Federal entities' financing plans for 
projects and studies. Traditionally, Congress has provided the 
consistency for studies and projects undertaken by the Corps of 
Engineers through congressionally directed spending by 
maintaining the commitments to local sponsors and insuring 
consistent levels of funding for the projects or studies that 
were initiated or funded in appropriation acts.
    Overall navigation funding is increased $173,000,000 in 
this budget proposal compared to what the administration 
proposed in fiscal year 2012. It is still down from the enacted 
amount for fiscal year 2012, but the Committee believes this is 
a positive move by the administration. However, Flood Risk 
Management is down $41,000,000 in this budget proposal when 
compared to fiscal year 2012. The Committee is puzzled by this 
cut, particularly after record setting floods on the Missouri 
and Mississippi Rivers in 2011. While $1,724,000,000 in 
emergency supplemental funding was provided in December 2011 to 
address repairs to flood control infrastructure damaged by 
natural disasters, that funding did not provide for all of the 
needs to return existing infrastructure to pre-disaster 
conditions. Fortunately, the funding allowed the Corps to 
address the highest priorities. However, one would think that 
flood control funding should have been increased in the budget 
request to address the needs and weaknesses in existing flood 
control infrastructure as well as the needs for new 
infrastructure that the flooding and other natural disasters 
revealed.
    The General Investigations Program is proposed at 
$102,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is a decrease of 
$23,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. This 
account funds the preauthorization studies necessary to 
determine the Federal interests in a water resource problem or 
need. The request provides funding for 80 studies for a total 
of almost $53,000,000 of the request. Of that amount, five 
studies are funded at $24,000,000. The other 75 studies are 
funded with the remaining $29,000,000. Four ecosystem 
restoration, one deep-draft navigation and one nationwide study 
are proposed as ``new study starts'' in the request.
    The Construction, General account is proposed at 
$1,471,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. The 95 line items proposed 
for the construction, general account can be broken down as 
follows:
  --Dam safety activities $402,800,000 (27.4 percent);
  --Environmental compliance activities comprise $196,000,000 
        (13.3 percent);
  --Ecosystem or environmental restoration activities comprise 
        $251,000,000 (17.1 percent);
  --Flood control and storm damage reduction activities 
        comprise $227,000,000 (15.4 percent);
  --Coastal or deep draft navigation activities comprise 
        $141,100,000 (9.6 percent);
  --Inland and shallow draft navigation activities comprise 
        $155,700,000 (10.6 percent); and
  --An additional $97,400,000 is proposed for national programs 
        (6.6 percent).
    This is a decrease of $223,000,000 from the fiscal year 
2012 enacted amount for this account. This account funds 
postauthorization studies and physical construction of 
authorized projects. Dam safety assurance and flood control 
projects that are primarily included due to their substantial 
life savings benefits appear to have taken the biggest 
reductions when compared to the fiscal year 2012 budget 
request. One large ecosystem restoration project, one flood 
control/ecosystem restoration project and one nonstructural 
flood control project are proposed as ``new construction 
starts'' in the request. Seven projects are projected for 
completion.
    The Mississippi River and Tributaries account is proposed 
at $234,000,000. This account funds studies, construction and 
operation and maintenance activities along the Mississippi 
River and designated tributaries from Cape Giradeau, Missouri, 
to the Gulf of Mexico. This is a decrease of $18,000,000 from 
the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. The request only provides 
construction funding for projects along the main stem of the 
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. No construction work is 
proposed along the tributaries of the project.
    The Operation and Maintenance account is proposed at 
$2,398,000,000. This is a decrease of $14,000,000 from the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. This account funds post 
authorization studies of operating projects, maintenance of 
Federal facilities and Federal operation of facilities where 
authorized by law. At this funding level, the Corps' budget 
estimates that 186 partial and 57 full recreation area closings 
will occur. Reduced recreational opportunities will occur at 
one third of the budgeted projects. Navigation funding from the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] is increased to an 
estimated $848,000,000 in the request. This is a $90,000,000 
increase over the fiscal year 2012 request but is still down 
$43,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount.
    The Regulatory Program is proposed at $205,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2013. This is an increase of $12,000,000 over the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted amount to this program that provides 
the funding for the Corps nationwide regulatory roles primarily 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the 
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
    The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly 
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] proposed at 
$104,000,000 was cut by $5,000,000 from the fiscal year 2012 
enacted amount. This program was transferred to the Corps from 
the Department of Energy, because the Committee was concerned 
with management and cost issues of the program within the 
Energy Department. This is a program that is being well-managed 
by the Corps and should have stable, adequate budget resources 
to continue these radiological clean-up activities. This 
proposed decrease in funding will further stretch out the 
clean-up of these sites.
    The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is 
proposed at $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is an 
increase of $3,000,000 over the fiscal year 2012 enacted 
amount. These funds are proposed for readiness and preparedness 
activities for the Corps of Engineers.
    The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 
Works) is proposed as a separate account for $5,000,000. This 
is the same as provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee 
continues to believe that the Assistant Secretary's office 
should be funded in the Defense appropriations bill. However, 
until such time as this account can be reintegrated into that 
bill, the Committee agrees that the office should be funded as 
a separate account. The Assistant Secretary's duties encompass 
much more than the Civil Works functions of the Corps of 
Engineers and the budget needs of the office should be 
addressed separately.
    The General Expenses [GE] account is proposed at 
$182,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is a $3,000,000 
decrease from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. The 
Committee notes that the Corps operates one of the most 
efficient headquarters staffs in the National Capital region. 
Only about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at headquarters as 
opposed to 10 percent or more for comparable agencies in the 
National Capital region.

                      THE NATION'S WATERWAY SYSTEM

    The Nation's waterway system constructed, operated, and 
maintained by the Corps is an incredibly versatile and 
interconnected system providing vital linkages to other modes 
of transportation as well as providing benefits to the national 
economy of more than $7,000,000,000 through transportation 
savings over other available modes of transportation. This 
system has been developed over the past 200 years and is 
showing its age. There are many lock chambers that are long 
past their design life or that need to be enlarged to handle 
increased traffic. Also, many harbor and channel projects need 
to be deepened or enlarged to handle contemporary vessel sizes. 
A major recapitalization of this infrastructure is needed, 
particularly if the Nation is to meet the President's goal of 
doubling exports in the next 5 years.
    Two trust funds were set up to fund portions of our 
navigation infrastructure. The HMTF provides for 100 percent of 
the maintenance of eligible deep draft projects, and the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF] provides for one-half of the 
construction cost of designated projects on the Nation's inland 
waterways. Both of these funds are subject to appropriation. 
The HMTF does a good job of collecting revenues, but 
appropriations generally lag considerably behind the 
collections so the fund balance continues to grow. The IWTF 
appropriations match the revenue collection, but the revenues 
collected are insufficient to undertake all of the needed work. 
Therefore the fund balance is essentially zero.
    Past investments have provided adequate, albeit in some 
cases inefficient, infrastructure to deal with current 
commodity and cargo movements. Only about 20 percent of the 
administration's proposed construction budget is dedicated to 
navigation projects. Despite whatever other efforts may be 
underway to meet the goal of doubling exports, the budget 
request for the Corps for improvements and maintenance of the 
waterway system falls woefully short of the needs. Ports are 
routinely not dredged to their full authorized dimensions. It 
is hard for this Committee to understand how exports can be 
doubled without improvements and adequate maintenance to the 
projects that provide for the transit and the exit points for 
these commodities.
    The Committee is concerned that there are major changes in 
worldwide shipping and trade occurring and on the horizon that 
our Nation's water infrastructure is not equipped to handle. 
One of these changes is the enlargement and deepening of the 
Panama Canal that will allow a shift to larger container 
vessels with a need for deeper ports and navigation channels. 
However, larger vessels are also transiting the Suez Canal and 
more and more will likely be attempting to call at the Nation's 
ports. If larger ships are unable to dock here, they may be 
forced to dock in other countries with the appropriate 
infrastructure and then reconfigure ships and cargos to 
accommodate U.S. water infrastructure, leading to increased 
transportation costs, higher end-unit prices and loss of jobs.
    Along with deeper channels to accommodate these larger 
vessels, ports will need efficient dockside infrastructure to 
handle the throughput of this increased trade. Intermodal 
improvements at ports and possibly short sea shipping will also 
be a part of trade movements in and among ports. Without this 
system, transportation of commodities, exports and imports, 
would become vastly more expensive. For more than 25 years, the 
current mechanisms have been in place. However, how water 
transportation infrastructure is planned, designed, 
constructed, maintained, and funded has not kept pace with the 
pace of change in worldwide trade.
    Water transportation infrastructure was and continues to be 
a linchpin of our national economy. It is time to determine if 
there is a better way to develop this infrastructure. The 
Committee believes it is important for the Congress to rethink 
the Federal role in water transportation to determine if there 
is a better way to plan, build and finance this critical 
infrastructure. The Committee will work with the appropriate 
authorizing and tax writing committees as well as industry and 
the administration to determine a path forward to provide the 
water transportation infrastructure that will be required for 
the next 50-100 years.

                      INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

    The Committee remains concerned about the Nation's Inland 
Waterways. This network of waterways moves nearly 600 million 
tons of cargo annually or 16 percent of our domestic freight. 
That is 600 million tons of cargo that are not moved on our 
already overburdened rail and highway system.
    The Inland Waterways System includes more than 12,000 miles 
of waterways that serve 41 States, including all States east of 
the Mississippi River. The Corps operates 238 lock chambers at 
192 sites. Nearly 140 of these locks have been in operation 
more than 50 years. This means that more than one-half of the 
lock chambers that are vital parts of the Inland Waterways 
System have exceeded the economic life of the projects.
    These locks, with associated dam structures, along with 
other waterway features provide other benefits for the Nation's 
economy such as recreation, hydropower, water supply and in 
some cases flood control. These other project benefits are a 
direct result of the construction of these projects to fulfill 
their navigation purpose.
    These lock chambers are in various states of deterioration. 
A properly funded maintenance program can stave off the 
inevitable effects of this deterioration. However, it has been 
a very long time since the Corps budget could be considered 
adequate to properly fund maintenance of these structures. 
Inevitably, these structures must be modernized or replaced, 
depending on the deterioration, if they are to continue to 
serve the purpose for which they were originally constructed.
    Current law provides that maintenance of these structures 
is funded from the general fund of the Treasury. This funding 
is intended to cover routine maintenance of the structures that 
maintain the functionality of the projects. Repairs are 
becoming more frequent, extensive and costly. Scheduled and 
unscheduled lock closures for maintenance purposes have almost 
doubled in the last 10 years.
    Whenever improvements to the functionality of the project 
are considered for implementation they are generally cost 
shared in the Construction, General account. These improvements 
can include a major overhaul of the mechanisms that operate the 
locks to improvements to the foundation or other major 
structural elements to a complete replacement of an antiquated 
lock facility. These major rehabilitations or new construction 
are cost shared. Half comes from the General Treasury and half 
comes from the IWTF.
    The IWTF is funded through a 20-cent-per-gallon tax on fuel 
used to transit the Inland Waterways System. This tax has 
remained 20 cents-per-gallon since 1995. Just adjusting the tax 
for inflation would make the fuel tax 30 cents per gallon to 
provide equivalent revenues to what was produced by the tax in 
1995. It is estimated that more than $340,000,000 has been lost 
to the IWTF since 1996 because this tax has not been adjusted 
for inflation.
    However, it is clear that construction costs have risen 
much faster than revenues available in the IWTF even if they 
had been adjusted for inflation. Lengthening of project 
construction schedules due to inadequate funding has caused 
project costs to increase, but costs have also increased due to 
other unknown factors.
    The Olmsted lock and dam replacement project is a case in 
point. This one lock and dam is intended to replace the 
outdated Locks and Dams 52 and 53 on the lower Ohio River. The 
project was authorized for construction in 1988 for a cost of 
$775,000,000. Construction was initiated in 1992 and nearly 
$1,500,000,000 have been appropriated towards construction 
since that time. The twin 1,200-foot long lock chambers are 
complete.
    The administration's budget request indicates that the cost 
of this single large project will have to be increased to 
$2,918,000,000, a nearly $900,000,000 increase since the last 
estimate reported to Congress. The Corps says the cost increase 
is due to unforeseen challenges in the selected method of 
construction for the dam section of the project.
    Any cost increase of this magnitude is of great concern to 
this Committee. However, this cost increase coupled with an 
already inadequate funding source in the IWTF is a recipe for 
disaster. The IWTF is essentially limited to incurring no more 
costs than the revenues that are brought in during a given 
year. In recent years that has limited work on the Inland 
Waterways System to about $170,000,000 annually. The current 
construction of Olmsted consumed 95 percent or more of the 
revenues available in the IWTF for the last several years. With 
this new cost estimate, that trend will likely continue for 
another decade.
    Abandoning the Olmsted project is not a viable option 
because Locks and Dams 52 and 53 still would have to be 
replaced, not to mention the $1,500,000,000 that has been 
invested in completing the two replacement lock chambers at 
Olmsted. Replacement costs of the two existing structures could 
exceed $3,000,000,000. This would be an even more expensive 
option than completing the work on Olmsted. The Committee 
understands that the Corps is examining all options to reduce 
remaining construction costs including changing the method of 
construction for the navigation pass in the dam section. The 
Corps should make every effort to expedite the construction 
schedule for this project and reduce any future cost growth.
    With all of the work needed to modernize our Inland 
Waterways System, this funding situation for the inland 
waterways is intolerable. To make the type of progress 
necessary to modernize this system in a reasonable period of 
time, a new financing model must be developed and implemented. 
Simply increasing the fuel tax will not supply the necessary 
revenues without a massive increase that would lead to 
disruptions on the system. A new financing mechanism must be 
considered, that not only provides the necessary revenues, but 
has an inflation adjustment factor built into the financing 
system.
    The HMTF tax offers an instructive model to consider for 
the IWTF. This tax is based on the value of the imports that 
transit specific harbors and waterways. The fees are collected 
by the customs department and deposited into the HMTF to be 
utilized for the maintenance of these waterways. This tax 
burden is shared by all who utilize these imported items, 
whereas the Inland Waterways Tax is only contributed based on 
the tax collected from the fuel used by vessels transporting 
cargo on the Inland Waterways System.
    It should be noted that the model used for the HMTF 
provided the bulk of all Federal revenue from 1790 until the 
eve of World War I, financing most Government operations. This 
seems an inherently fair way to collect revenue to finance 
waterways utilized to transport goods and materials that 
benefit the national economy. Corps projects are justified 
based on benefits to the national economy, so as the Nation 
benefits, the Nation should contribute towards the 
recapitalization of these assets.
    The Inland Waterways System is far too important to allow 
it to continue to languish with inadequate funding and 
crumbling infrastructure. The Committee has been patiently 
waiting for six budget cycles for a solution to these problems 
from the administration and the appropriate congressional 
committees. Since that has not happened, the Committee has 
decided to take action on its own.
    For fiscal year 2013, the Committee has included 
legislative language directing that no more than 25 percent of 
the costs for Olmsted Lock and Dam should be drawn from the 
IWTF. This action frees up $36,000,000 in IWTF revenues. When 
combined with $36,000,000 from the General Treasury $72,000,000 
will be available to be expended on other portions of the 
Inland Waterways System. These funds are included in the 
Construction, General account under additional funding for 
ongoing work. The Corps should propose IWTF-eligible projects 
as a part of their work plan for these funds based on the 
criteria that is found in that section of the report.
    This action was not taken lightly by the Committee. It is a 
recognition that something has got to change. It should not be 
looked at as a permanent solution. This is a 1-year change in 
the proportionality of the IWTF/General Treasury split for 
fiscal year 2013. It does not change the ultimate cost sharing 
for Olmsted. It only delays the inevitable day of reckoning 
when the costs for Olmsted will have to be brought back into 
the proper 50/50 balance. Legislation must be proposed and 
enacted to ensure that sufficient funding is available to 
ensure that this transportation infrastructure will continue to 
function as designed providing benefits to the national 
economy.

         OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR INLAND WATERWAYS

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

                     HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

    Available revenue from the 0.125 percent tax on the value 
of imports at designated harbors provides roughly 
$1,500,000,000 annually to this fund. These revenues can be 
utilized for maintenance on more than 1,500 ports, harbors and 
waterways. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes $848,000,000 
for maintenance of commercial waterways and ports to be 
appropriated from the General Treasury and ultimately 
reimbursed from the HMTF. This is down $43,000,000 from the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted bill. This imbalance between receipts 
and appropriations has led to a surplus in the HMTF of some 
$6,000,000,000.

                              LEVEE SAFETY

    One positive outcome from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina 
was that the public became more aware of the levees that 
protect their communities. This new awareness resulted in an 
examination of the conditions of these projects. Concurrent 
with this new awareness was the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency [FEMA] map modernization program for flood insurance 
rate maps. With this remapping came the issue of certification 
of existing levees and the need to determine how safe these 
levees are. All of these factors have combined to cause a great 
deal of uncertainty.
    While the Committee would like to believe that engineered 
structures will never fail, the reality is that all engineered 
structures have the potential for failure if the right set of 
circumstances happen at the right time. Risk is inherent in any 
man-made structure and the Corps is charged with balancing that 
risk with the costs of the risk reduction measures. The cost 
for risk-free protection is more than the Nation has been 
willing to consider for any project. There are always trade-
offs. This is especially true with flood control structures. 
There is always a larger flood, or an unknown or unaccounted 
for failure mode that can cause the structure to fail. The 
Committee looks to the Corps to propose and build structures to 
protect people based on the risks that they may face and to 
communicate the residual risk that people protected by these 
structure still face. It should be understood that while the 
structures mitigate risk, they do not eliminate it.
    The Committee fully supports the Corps' efforts on levee 
safety. However, the Committee remains concerned that the costs 
to repair levees may be overwhelming to local interests. The 
Committee is not suggesting that the Corps should back away 
from its safety culture, only that there should be checks and 
balances to ensure that recommendations are not blindly made in 
the name of safety without determining if the recommendations 
actually provide cost effective safety improvements. The 
Committee encourages the Corps when working with communities on 
levee issues to be cognizant of the costs for proposed fixes 
and the community's ability to fund the repairs.
    The Committee notes that the role of the Corps in assisting 
communities in developing data required for participation in 
the National Flood Insurance Program continues to be unresolved 
despite several years of dialogue between the Corps and FEMA. 
The Committee therefore directs the Corps to report within 30 
days of enactment of this act on the status of its joint task 
force with FEMA to improve flood maps by leveraging existing 
Federal resources and procedures to develop data on the actual 
level of protection provided by flood control structures.
    The Committee remains concerned about what it believes is 
an overly broad reading of the definition of levees provided in 
section 9002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. 
The Committee understands that the National Committee on Levee 
Safety [NCLS] has recommended two main exclusions in its 
definitions: one for structures of limited height and limited 
risks as well as one for canal structures already covered under 
a safety program. These exclusions appear to cover most of the 
areas of concern. While the Committee understands that the 
recommendations of the NCLS are not actionable or even 
considered as standards or a national definition under current 
legislation, future legislation for a National Levee Safety 
Program will likely be largely developed from the 
recommendations of the NCLS. Therefore the Committee strongly 
urges the NCLS to include these exclusions in any 
recommendations that are made towards any type of National 
Levee Safety Program.

                            LEVEE VEGETATION

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

                            PLANNING PROGRAM

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

                 CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING

    The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the 
Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional 
direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in 
accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the 
Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control 
may dictate the progress of any given project or study.
    The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation 
provided in the Fiscal Year 2013 Energy and Water Development 
Act.

                    NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

    The Committee is including the following new starts 
proposed in the administration's budget request for fiscal year 
2013: Cano Martin Pena, Puerto Rico; Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Delaware, and 
the District of Columbia; Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams 
(Yuba River), California; Louisiana Coastal Comprehensive 
Study; Houston Ship Channel, Texas; Hamilton City, California 
Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration; Louisiana Coastal 
Area, Louisiana; and Lower Colorado River Basin, Onion Creek, 
Texas.
    In addition, the Secretary is directed to propose a single 
group of new starts to the House and Senate Appropriation 
Committees within 45 days of enactment of this act as a part of 
the work plan. The new starts shall consist of five new study 
starts and three new construction starts. The majority of the 
benefits of the selected new starts must be derived from 
navigation, storm damage reduction or flood control mission 
areas of the Corps. The Committee is recommending this new 
start proposal to provide some balance to the predominantly 
ecosystem restoration new starts proposed in the 
administration's budget request. By allowing the administration 
to select these additional new start studies and projects and 
directing that they come from the navigation and flood control 
mission areas of the Corps the Committee is attempting to 
ensure that the Corps' future programs will continue to balance 
the various missions of the Corps.

                          SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE

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

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

    Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous 
with earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the 
Corps of Engineers where the majority of the budget request is 
based on individual line item studies and projects. Due to this 
ongoing debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all 
congressionally directed spending requests for fiscal year 
2013. That means that the administration has total discretion 
as to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be 
spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The 
Committee has retained the traditional tables for each of the 
four major accounts delineating the 914 line items requested by 
the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in the 
administration's budget request, the Committee has also 
inserted additional line item funding under the nationwide 
heading for specific categories of studies or projects that the 
Committee feels are underrepresented in the administration's 
budget request. The Corps has discretion within the guidelines 
provided in each account as to which line items this additional 
funding will be applied to. The Committee has not included any 
congressionally directed spending as defined in section 5(a) of 
rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $125,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     102,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     125,000,000

    This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, 
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the 
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and 
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction 
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency 
coordination and research activities.
    The planning program is the entry point for Federal 
involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource 
problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations 
[GI] account amount proposed in the budget is generally the 
same as what has been proposed in previous budgets. Nationwide 
studies and programs consume almost one-half of the 
administration's GI request. This budget asserts that the 
Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing 
studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies.
    The Committee has provided for a balanced planning program 
for fiscal year 2013 with ten new study starts--five from the 
budget request and an additional five to be selected based on 
the Corps' prioritization process and included as a part of the 
General Investigations work plan.
    The first column in the table that follows represents the 
reconnaissance phase of the planning process. These studies 
determine if there is a Federal interest in a water resource 
problem or need and if there is a cost sharing sponsor willing 
to move forward with the study. The next column represents the 
feasibility phase of the study. These detailed cost-shared 
studies determine the selected alternative to be recommended to 
the Congress for construction. The third column represents the 
preconstruction engineering and design phase. These detailed 
cost-shared designs are prepared while the project recommended 
to Congress is awaiting authorization for construction.
    The Committee believes that by segregating the table in 
this manner, more attention can be focused on the various study 
phases, and a more balanced planning program can be developed 
by the administration. As the last two columns are generally 
cost shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost-sharing 
sponsors to be a part of the Federal planning process. By the 
same token, it also shows the level of commitment of the 
Federal Government to these cost-sharing sponsors.
    The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance 
are shown on the following table:

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

                   ALASKA

ALASKA REGIONAL PORTS, AK.....................  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........
MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK.................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........

                   ARKANSAS

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, AR, IL,  .........        800  .........  .........        800  .........
 KY, LA.......................................

                  CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA...  .........        900  .........  .........        900  .........
LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA...  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA....................  .........        420  .........  .........        420  .........
SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........
 STUDY, CA....................................
SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA..  .........      1,015  .........  .........      1,015  .........
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA...................  .........        216  .........  .........        216  .........
SOLANA BEACH, CA..............................  .........        188  .........  .........        188  .........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA.............................  .........        988  .........  .........        988  .........
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA....................  .........        541  .........  .........        541  .........
YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA...................        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........

                   COLORADO

CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK          .........         67  .........  .........         67  .........
 RESERVOIRS, CO...............................

                    FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.......................  .........      1,400  .........  .........      1,400  .........
MILE POINT, FL................................  .........  .........        748  .........  .........        748

                    GEORGIA

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA.................  .........  .........      2,800  .........  .........  .........

                    HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI.......................  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........

                   ILLINOIS

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II)..............  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL..........  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........
INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES-MISSISSIPPI   .........      3,000  .........  .........      3,000  .........
 RIVER AQUIFIER...............................

                     IOWA

HUMBOLDT, IA..................................  .........        230  .........  .........        230  .........

                    KANSAS

TOPEKA, KS....................................  .........  .........        431  .........  .........        431
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS........................  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500

                   KENTUCKY

OHIO RIVER SHORELINE, PADUCAH, KY.............  .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500

                   LOUISIANA

CALCASIEU LOCK, LA............................  .........        750  .........  .........        750  .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LA.  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,   .........      3,917      5,447  .........      3,917      5,447
 LA...........................................

                   MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, MONTGOMERY     .........        250  .........  .........        250  .........
 COUNTY, MD...................................
ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, PRINCE         .........        250  .........  .........        250  .........
 GEORGE'S COUNTY..............................
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA, AND        250  .........  .........        250  .........  .........
 VA...........................................

                 MASSACHUSETTS

BOSTON HARBOR DEEP DRAFT INVESTIGATION, MA....  .........  .........      1,800  .........  .........      1,800

                   MINNESOTA

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

                   MISSOURI

KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS.......................  .........  .........         50  .........  .........         50
MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO................  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND     .........  .........        500  .........  .........        500
 R460-471, MO.................................

                    MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT................  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........

                 NEW HAMPSHIRE

MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH AND MA....  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........

                  NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ..............  .........        290  .........  .........        290  .........
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK              .........  .........         50  .........  .........         50
 MEADOWLANDS, NJ..............................
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER,    .........         50  .........  .........         50  .........
 NJ...........................................
PASSAIC RIVER MAINSTEM, NJ....................  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ.  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........

                  NEW MEXICO

RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO, AND TX..............  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........

                   NEW YORK

HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ.............  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY..  .........  .........        100  .........  .........        100
UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, LIVINGSTONE     .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........
 MANOR, NY....................................
WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, BYRAM RIVER BASIN,  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........
 NY AND CT....................................

                NORTH CAROLINA

BOGUE BANKS, NC...............................  .........        445  .........  .........        445  .........
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC...........................  .........        358  .........  .........        358  .........
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC.........................  .........  .........        450  .........  .........        450
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC.........  .........  .........        225  .........  .........        225
WILMINGTON HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, NC............  .........        250  .........  .........        250  .........

                 NORTH DAKOTA

FARGO, ND--MOORHEAD, MN METRO.................  .........  .........      5,000  .........  .........      5,000
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD, AND   .........        433  .........  .........        433  .........
 MANITOBA, CANADA.............................

                    OREGON

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR  .........        300  .........  .........        300  .........
 AND WA.......................................
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA........  .........  .........        350  .........  .........        350
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR.............  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR...  .........         80        500  .........         80        500
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR...  .........        180        200  .........        180        200

                 PENNSYLVANIA

SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, WISSAHICKON CREEK       .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........
 BASIN, PA....................................
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA...............  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000  .........

                  PUERTO RICO

CANO MARTIN PENA, PR..........................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........

                SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.........................  .........      3,549  .........  .........      3,549  .........
EDISTO ISLAND, SC.............................  .........        328  .........  .........        328  .........

                     TEXAS

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX.  .........        726  .........  .........        726  .........
DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX  .........        700  .........  .........        700  .........
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX....  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX......................        100  .........  .........        100  .........  .........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX................  .........        425  .........  .........        425  .........
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX..............  .........        650  .........  .........        650  .........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX..............  .........        200  .........  .........        200  .........

                   VIRGINIA

JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC       .........         50  .........  .........         50  .........
 (SECTION 216)................................
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA.....................  .........  .........        300  .........  .........        300
UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE,   .........  .........         50  .........  .........         50
 VA...........................................
WILLOUGHBY SPIT AND VICINITY, NORFOLK, VA.....  .........  .........        225  .........  .........        225

                  WASHINGTON

MOUNT SAINT HELENS, WA........................  .........        225  .........  .........        225  .........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT            .........        850  .........  .........        850  .........
 RESTORATION, WA..............................
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES............        450     31,771     20,726        450     31,771     17,926

                REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
    FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION..........  .........  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........
    FLOOD CONTROL.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      9,000  .........
    SHORE PROTECTION..........................  .........  .........  .........  .........      5,000
NAVIGATION....................................  .........  .........  .........  .........      3,000  .........
    COASTAL AND DEEP-DRAFT....................  .........  .........  .........  .........      6,000  .........
    INLAND....................................  .........  .........  .........  .........      4,000  .........
    SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE.............  .........  .........  .........  .........      3,000
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES.............  .........  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE...  .........  .........  .........  .........      2,000  .........
    REMOTE, COASTAL, OR SMALL WATERSHED.......  .........  .........  .........  .........      3,000  .........
COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES:
    ACCESS TO WATER DATA......................  .........        750  .........  .........        750
    COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS  .........        100  .........  .........        100
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS:
    CALFED....................................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........
    CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM....................  .........         75  .........  .........         75  .........
    COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE      .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........
     AGENCIES.................................
    GULF OF MEXICO............................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........
    INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.....  .........        500  .........  .........        500  .........
    INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT....  .........        955  .........  .........        955  .........
    INVENTORY OF DAMS.........................  .........        400  .........  .........        400  .........
    LAKE TAHOE................................  .........        100  .........  .........        100  .........
    PACIFIC NW FOREST CASE....................  .........         10  .........  .........         10  .........
    SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS....................  .........      1,350  .........  .........      1,350  .........
    FERC LICENSING............................  .........        200  .........  .........        200
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.................  .........      4,000  .........  .........      4,300  .........
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA:
    AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI-  .........        350  .........  .........        350
     CADD.....................................
    COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION.............  .........      1,000  .........  .........      1,000
    ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES................  .........         75  .........  .........         75
    FLOOD DAMAGE DATA.........................  .........        220  .........  .........        220
    FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES...........  .........      9,500  .........  .........      9,500
    HYDROLOGIC STUDIES........................  .........        250  .........  .........        250
    INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES...............  .........        200  .........  .........        200
    PRECIPITATION STUDIES.....................  .........        225  .........  .........        225
    REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION       .........         75  .........  .........         75
     SYSTEM SUPPORT...........................
    SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION        .........         50  .........  .........         50
     CENTERS..................................
    STREAM GAGING.............................  .........        550  .........  .........        550
    TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS....................  .........        950  .........  .........        950  .........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT......................  .........     16,143  .........  .........     16,143  .........
OTHER--MISCELLANEOUS:
    INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW...................  .........        300  .........  .........        300
    NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM....  .........      2,850  .........  .........      2,850
    NATIONAL SHORELINE........................  .........        675  .........  .........        675
    PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM..................  .........      4,000  .........  .........      4,000
    TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM................  .........        500  .........  .........        500
    WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY..........  .........      2,000  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL................................  .........     49,053  .........  .........     86,353  .........

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE..........................  .........  .........  .........  .........    -11,500  .........
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL...................................        450     80,824     20,726        450    106,624     17,926
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL.............................         102,000
                                                ....................
                                                  .................
                                                       125,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee has not 
funded this item in the GI account as recommended by the 
administration. The Committee has transferred the budget 
request to the Construction, General account where the 
Committee has funded it every year since fiscal year 2009.
    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The fiscal year 2013 
budget request does not reflect the extent of need for project 
studies funding. The Corps has numerous continuing studies that 
will be suspended under the limits of the budget request. These 
studies could lead to projects with significant economic 
benefits, particularly by increasing national competitiveness 
through marine transportation improvements and by avoiding 
damages caused by flooding and coastal storms. The Committee 
recommends additional funds to continue ongoing studies. None 
of these funds may be used for any item where funding was 
specifically denied. While this additional funding is shown in 
the feasibility column, the Corps should utilize these funds in 
any applicable phase of work. The intent of these funds is for 
ongoing work that either was not included in the 
administration's request or was inadequately budgeted.
    Ongoing studies that are actively progressing and can 
utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for these 
additional funds. The five new study starts directed as part of 
the work plan shall be funded from the appropriate additional 
funding line item. It should be understood that the Committee 
intends that there be only 10 new study starts in fiscal year 
2013 owing to current and anticipated future budget 
constraints. Funding associated with each category may be 
allocated to any eligible study within that category; funding 
associated with each subcategory may be allocated only to 
eligible studies within that subcategory. The list of 
subcategories is not meant to be exhaustive. The Committee 
directs that priority in allocating these funds be given to 
funding the five new starts directed by the Committee, 
completing or accelerating ongoing studies which will enhance 
the Nation's economic development, job growth and international 
competitiveness, or are for projects located in areas that have 
suffered recent natural disasters.
    Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall 
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
work plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed and 
in which phase the work is to be accomplished. The Committee 
directs that a listing should accompany the work plan showing 
all the ongoing studies that were considered eligible and could 
have used funding for fiscal year 2013 and the reasons why 
these items were considered as being less competitive for 
inclusion in the work plan.
    Water Resources Priorities Study.--No funding is included 
for this new item.

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $1,694,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   1,471,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,700,000,000

    This appropriation includes funds for construction, major 
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources 
development projects having navigation, flood and storm damage 
reduction, water supply, hydroelectric, environmental 
restoration, and other attendant benefits to the Nation. The 
construction and major rehabilitation for designated projects 
for inland and costal waterways will derive one-half of the 
funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Funds to be 
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied 
to cover the Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal 
Facilities Program.
    The administration request for the Construction, General 
account is $1,471,000,000, a decrease of $223,000,000 from the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. By the Committee's estimate, 
less than 60 percent of the needed funding is available in this 
account. Construction will slip due to constrained funding and 
benefits to the national economy will be deferred. As the 
Committee has noted over the last 7 years the funding proposed 
for this account appears to be ``pennywise and pound foolish.'' 
Lack of investment in this infrastructure will inevitably lead 
to another Katrina-style disaster somewhere in the Nation, 
whether it is a catastrophic failure on the Inland Waterways 
System or overwhelmed, incomplete or damaged flood control or 
shore protection infrastructure. When that failure occurs, we 
will expend billions trying to restore or accelerate the 
construction of the infrastructure that failed all the while 
lamenting how this could have been allowed to happen.
    The Committee recommendation includes $1,700,000,000 in new 
budget authority for this account. The Committee recognizes 
that this is considerably less than the needs in the program 
but is the best that can be accomplished in this constrained 
fiscal environment.
    The Committee has provided for six new construction starts 
in fiscal year 2013--three new construction starts proposed in 
the budget request and three to be selected based on the Corps' 
prioritization process and included as a part of the 
Construction, General work plan.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

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

               CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON                   6,400           6,400
 FEATURES), CA..........................
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM              86,700          86,700
 MODIFICATIONS), CA.....................
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM               5,100           5,100
 RAISE), CA.............................
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION,            2,200           2,200
 CA.....................................
HAMILTON CITY, CA.......................           7,500           7,500
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA..           2,500           2,500
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA....             500             500
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION                   3,000           3,000
 PROJECT, CA............................
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA............           7,200           7,200
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)           3,000           3,000
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA....................           1,800           1,800

                DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET              350             350
 TO LEWES BEACH.........................

                 FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY, CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL....             350             350
DUVAL COUNTY, FL........................             100             100
FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL...................             350             350
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE                 153,000         153,000
 CONTROL)...............................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.................           3,195           3,195
MANATEE COUNTY, FL......................             100             100
MARTIN COUNTY, FL.......................             350             350
NASSAU COUNTY, FL.......................             350             350
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL.         153,324         153,324
ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, FL...................             350             350
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................           8,305           8,305

                 GEORGIA

LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA..........              30              30
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND            1,000           1,000
 SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, GA AND             8,817           8,817
 SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA...........  ..............           2,800
TYBEE ISLAND, GA........................             150             150

                ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER,           3,000           3,000
 IL (DEF CORR)..........................
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL                   24,500          24,500
 DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL..................
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL...................           2,300           2,300
EAST ST. LOUIS, IL......................           1,290           1,290
ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK AND               3,600           3,600
 DAM, IL (MAJOR REHAB)..................
LOCK AND DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL               850             850
 (MAJOR REHAB)..........................
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL......          12,000          12,000
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL            144,000         144,000
 AND KY.................................
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL,          17,880          17,880
 IA, MN, MO.............................
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, DEFICIENCY CORRECTION            4,202           4,202
 AND RECONSTRUCTION.....................

                  IOWA

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE                  90,000          90,000
 RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO...................

                 KANSAS

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO...........           4,000           4,000

                KENTUCKY

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.....          85,000          85,000

                LOUISIANA

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............           5,223           5,223
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA........           2,000           2,000
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE             5,000           5,000
 PROTECTION)............................
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM                  16,825          16,825
 RESTORATION, LA........................

                MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE, MD..........................           1,200           1,200
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND             5,000           5,000
 VA.....................................
POPLAR ISLAND, MD.......................          13,500          13,500

              MASSACHUSETTS

MUDDY RIVER, MA.........................           5,000           5,000

                MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO.....           1,000           1,000
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS.................           7,734           7,734
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND             7,938           7,938
 MISSOURI RIVERS........................
MONARCH--CHESTERFIELD, MO...............           2,340           2,340
ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO..........             200             200

               NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR                  600             600
 INLET, NJ..............................
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ....             200             200
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, AND          31,000          31,000
 DE.....................................
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH,             7,000           7,000
 NJ.....................................
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT,              400             400
 NJ.....................................
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT               1,000           1,000
 MONMOUTH, NJ...........................
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-              1,000           1,000
 BASIN, NJ..............................

               NEW MEXICO

RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO                10,000          10,000
 BOSQUE DEL APACHE,.....................
SOUTHWEST VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION,           5,709           5,709
 ALBUQUERQUE, NM........................

                NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO             100             100
 NORTON POINT, NY.......................
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY..           5,550           5,550
LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY...................             500             500
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND            68,000          68,000
 NJ.....................................

             NORTH CAROLINA

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.............             600             600
WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET,               200             200
 NC.....................................
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...................           7,200           7,200

                  OHIO

BOLIVAR DAM, OH (DAM SAFETY)............          13,800          13,800
DOVER DAM, MUSKINGUM RIVER, OH (DAM                1,750           1,750
 SAFETY)................................

                OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE, OK.........................           6,000           6,000

                 OREGON

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS                 350             350
 SITES, OR AND WA.......................
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR......................             194             194
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM                     3,650           3,650
 RESTORATION, OR AND WA.................

              PENNSYLVANIA

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA......          15,000          15,000
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3, AND 4, MONONGAHELA           36,650          36,650
 RIVER, PA..............................
PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT)..           1,500           1,500

               PUERTO RICO

PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR.........           6,000           6,000
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR....................          14,250          14,250

             SOUTH CAROLINA

FOLLY BEACH, SC.........................             400             400

                TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN....................          75,000          75,000

                  TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX................           2,100           2,100
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN (WHARTON/               2,000           2,000
 ONION), TX.............................
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX.................           2,171           2,171

                VIRGINIA

LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER                     2,075           2,075
 CUMBERLAND RIVER, VA...................
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS                300             300
 AREA, VA...............................

               WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR,           98,000          98,000
 AND ID.................................
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA......           2,500           2,500
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA...................           6,000           6,000
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE                2,000           2,000
 COMPENSATION, WA.......................
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.           3,500           3,500
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA....................             750             750

              WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV......................          10,000          10,000

                WISCONSIN

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI....................           7,000           7,000
                                         -------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES......       1,373,602       1,376,402

             REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION........  ..............          30,000
    FLOOD CONTROL.......................  ..............          50,000
    SHORE PROTECTION....................  ..............          40,000
NAVIGATION..............................  ..............          30,000
    INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND PROJECTS  ..............          72,000
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES.......  ..............           9,000
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR          ..............           8,000
     COMPLIANCE.........................
    ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS  ..............          40,000
    HYDROPOWER PROJECTS.................  ..............           9,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM...........  ..............           4,000
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT
 REQUIRING SPECIFIC:
    AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION                  4,034           8,000
     (SECTION 206)......................
    BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL            4,995           7,500
     (SECTIONS 204).....................
    EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE    ..............           5,000
     PROTECTION.........................
    FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)           4,978           7,500
    NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT                  4,806           6,000
     (SECTION 111)......................
    NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107)....  ..............           1,000
    PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR                      5,249           7,500
     IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.....
    SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103)......  ..............           2,500
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY                  47,750          47,750
 CORRECTION PROGRAM.....................
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION.................          23,726          20,226
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD                   60              60
 EXPENSE................................
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS                  800             800
 EXPENSE................................
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW            1,000           1,000
 106-457)...............................
RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES..........  ..............           1,000
                                         -------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL..........................          97,398         407,836

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE....................  ..............         -84,238
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................       1,471,000       1,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The administration 
budget request for this item that was proposed in the GI 
account has been moved to this account where it has been funded 
since fiscal year 2009.
    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Corps has 
ongoing, authorized construction projects that would cost tens 
of billions of dollars to complete, yet the administration 
continues to request a mere fraction of the funding necessary 
to complete those projects. The Committee recommends additional 
funds to continue ongoing projects and activities to enhance 
the Nation's economic growth and international competitiveness. 
The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that either was 
not included in the administration's request or was 
inadequately budgeted. None of these funds shall be used for 
projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. Funding 
associated with each category may be allocated to any eligible 
project within that category; funding associated with each 
subcategory may be allocated only to eligible projects within 
that subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant to be 
exhaustive.
    Ongoing construction projects that are actively progressing 
and can utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for 
these additional funds. This includes periodic beach 
renourishments. The three new project starts directed as part 
of the work plan shall be funded from the appropriate 
additional funding line-item. The Committee intends only six 
new construction starts in fiscal year 2013, the three proposed 
by the administration in the budget request and three 
additional new starts provided by the Committee but selected by 
the administration. Priority in allocating additional funding 
should consider the following: number of jobs created directly 
by the funded activity; the benefits of the funded work to the 
national economy; ability to obligate the funds allocated 
within the fiscal year, including consideration of the ability 
of the non-Federal sponsor to provide any required cost-share; 
ability to complete the project, separable element, or project 
phase within the funds allocated; for flood and storm damage 
reduction, population at risk and economic activity or public 
infrastructure at risk; and for navigation, number of jobs or 
level of economic activity to be supported by completion of the 
project, separable element, or project phase. A major factor to 
be considered for prioritizing inland waterway funding is the 
economic impact on the local, regional, and national economy if 
the project is not funded. In addition, priority should be 
given to discrete elements of work that can be completed within 
the funding provided in this line item.
    Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall 
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
work plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed. 
The Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work 
plan showing all the ongoing construction projects that were 
considered eligible and could have used funding for fiscal year 
2013 and the reasons why these items were considered as being 
less competitive for inclusion in the work plan.
    Continuing Authorities Program [CAP].--The Continuing 
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific 
authorizing legislation) includes projects for flood control 
(section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline protection 
(section 14), beach erosion control (section 103), mitigation 
of shore damages (section 111), navigation projects (section 
107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic ecosystem 
restoration (section 206), beneficial uses of dredged material 
(section 204), and project modifications for improvement of the 
environment (section 1135). The Committee has chosen to fund 
eight of the nine sections of the CAP program rather than only 
the five sections proposed in the budget request. The Committee 
has not funded section 208 as it believes these projects can 
easily be accommodated under the authority of section 205. The 
Committee believes that CAP funds should be expended for the 
CAP sections for which they were appropriated and should be 
executed as quickly as possible. The Committee continues to 
believe that the various sections of the CAP program provide a 
useful tool for the Corps to undertake small localized projects 
without being encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization 
phases typical of most Corps projects.
    The Committee has included a total of $45,000,000 spread 
over the eight CAP sections for work in fiscal year 2013. The 
Committee urges the administration to execute the program laid 
out by the Committee and include funding for this program in 
future budgets.
    Continuing Authorities Program Direction.--For each CAP 
section, available funds shall be allocated utilizing this 
sequence of steps until the funds are exhausted:
  --capability-level funds for ongoing projects that have 
        executed cost-sharing agreements for the applicable 
        phase;
  --capability-level funds for projects that are ready for 
        execution of new cost-sharing agreements for the 
        applicable phase and for which Corps headquarters 
        authorizes execution of the agreements;
  --funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other projects 
        previously funded for the applicable phase but not 
        ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements; and
  --funds as permitted by Corps policies, for projects not 
        previously funded for the applicable phase.
    Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate 
Field Operating Agency [FOA] for projects requested by that 
FOA. If the FOA finds that the study/project for which funds 
were requested cannot go forward, the funds are to be returned 
to Corps headquarters to be reallocated based on the nationwide 
priority listing. In no case should the FOA retain these funds 
for use on a different project than the one for which the funds 
were requested without the explicit approval of the Corps' 
headquarters.
    Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for 
each CAP section, funds shall be allocated to the projects in 
that section that rank high according to the following factors: 
high overall performance based on outputs; high percent 
fiscally complete; and high unobligated carry-in. Section 14 
funds shall be allocated to the projects that address the most 
significant risks and adverse consequences, irrespective of 
phase or previous funding history.
    The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending 
and terminating inactive projects. Suspended projects shall not 
be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in 
writing its support for the project and establishes its 
willingness and capability to execute its project 
responsibilities.
    In order to provide a mix of studies, design and 
construction within each CAP section, the Corps is directed to 
divide the funding generally 80/20 between the Design and 
Implementation and the Feasibility phases within each 
authority. The Chief of Engineers shall provide a report to the 
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of 
this act detailing how funds will be distributed to the 
individual items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal 
year. The Chief shall also provide an annual report at the end 
of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the backlog 
of projects. The report should include the completions and 
terminations as well as progress of ongoing work.
    The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects 
in all sections as funding allows. New projects may be 
initiated after an assessment is made that such projects can be 
funded over time based on historical averages of the 
appropriation for that section and after prior approval by the 
Committees on Appropriations.
    Restoration of Abandoned Mines.--The Corps is directed to 
work closely with those Federal land management agencies, 
Western States and tribes with abandoned non-coal mine sites so 
that the greatest number of those sites presenting threats to 
public health and safety can be addressed in a cost-effective 
manner.

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

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $252,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     234,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     253,000,000

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

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

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

              CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS,          46,133          46,133
 MO, AND TN.............................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY,             45,187          45,187
 LA, MS, MO, AND TN.....................
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA..           1,650           1,650
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA...................           6,300           6,300
                                         -------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION............          99,270          99,270

        OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS,          56,001          56,001
 MO, AND TN.............................
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR......             158             158
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.......             250             250
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR....             287             287
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR....             193             193
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY,              8,452           8,452
 LA, MS, MO, AND TN.....................
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO............           5,900           5,900
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS,             1,839           1,839
 AR AND LA..............................
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR...............           1,142           1,142
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.......             170             170
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.......             100             100
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA..           1,738           1,738
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA...................           9,747           9,747
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA.....              60              60
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA......              46              46
BONNET CARRE, LA........................           2,195           2,195
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.......             997             997
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA..             368             368
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA............             472             472
OLD RIVER, LA...........................           8,050           8,050
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA...           2,414           2,414
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS...................              23              23
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.......             121             121
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS....................              41              41
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.........           5,203           5,203
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS....             177             177
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS..............           4,795           4,795
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS..............             788             788
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS...........           5,222           5,222
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS..............           1,273           1,273
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS............           6,493           6,493
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS............             944             944
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M. WHITTINGTON                     375             375
 AUXILARY CHANNEL, MS...................
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS...             511             511
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS.............             714             714
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.......             200             200
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO.....................           4,064           4,064
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.......              80              80
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN.......           1,464           1,464
                                         -------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND                    133,067         133,067
       MAINTENANCE......................

             REMAINING ITEMS

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
    DREDGING............................  ..............           5,000
    FLOOD CONTROL.......................  ..............          10,000
    WATER SUPPLY AND RELATED AUTHORIZED   ..............          10,000
     PURPOSES...........................
    OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES...  ..............           5,000
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA......             500             500
MAPPING.................................           1,063           1,063
                                         -------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL REMAINING ITEMS..........           1,563          31,563

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE......  ..............         -11,000
                                         -------------------------------
    TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND                 234,000         253,000
     TRIBUTARIES........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $2,412,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   2,398,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,404,000,000

    This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and 
related activities at the water resources projects that the 
Corps operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists 
of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other 
facilities, as authorized in the various river and harbor, 
flood control, and water resources development acts. Related 
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of 
completed projects where appropriate, removal of sunken 
vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce 
statistics.
    Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory 
gets more expensive every year, however, it is consistently 
underfunded. If this trend continues, the Corps will not be 
able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its 
projects. The Committee is pleased that the budget request 
increases spending from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by 
$90,000,000 over the fiscal year 2012 budget request, but by 
the Committee's estimate, the estimate of $848,000,000 that is 
anticipated to be expended from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund in fiscal year 2013 is $43,000,000 below the fiscal year 
2012 enacted amount.
    The Committee has maintained its tradition of supporting 
what the budget request terms as ``low use harbors and 
waterways.'' The Committee recognizes the importance of these 
facilities and will continue to provide funding for them. The 
Committee understands that the O&M budget fluctuates from year 
to year due to periodic maintenance dredging requirements, 
however, the general trend should be for this budget to 
increase. Nearly 75 percent of the O&M budget consists of labor 
and dredging costs in most years. Labor costs rarely decrease 
for the Corps as it takes roughly the same amount of manpower 
to operate Corps projects on a yearly basis. That means that 
when the budget request is reduced, the only areas available to 
reduce are dredging and maintenance items.
    The Committee understands that the Corps is looking at a 
variety of ways to reduce costs for operation and maintenance 
[O&M] of projects--including reducing operations at locks and 
dams. The Committee believes that in the current fiscal 
environment it is appropriate to look at all manner of cost-
savings ideas, but that any options that involve major changes 
should be discussed with the Committee before they appear in an 
administration budget request.
    The Corps is to be commended for managing to keep as much 
of their infrastructure operable as they have with the O&M 
budgets that have been put forward and enacted. The Committee 
urges the administration to commit to a more realistic budget 
for O&M in future fiscal years.
    The budget request and the Committee recommendation are 
shown on the following table:

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

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY,             246             246
 AL.....................................
ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL.................          14,926          14,926
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL..          20,971          20,971
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL..........           5,608           5,608
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL.......              80              80
MOBILE HARBOR, AL.......................          30,071          30,071
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL...........             100             100
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE              1,901           1,901
 MITIGATION, AL.........................
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS.          22,852          22,852
WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA           8,042           8,042

                 ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK....................          13,930          13,930
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK...................           3,328           3,328
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK...................           1,000           1,000
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................             467             467
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK.......             210             210
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK....................             454             454
NOME HARBOR, AK.........................           1,151           1,151
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK...........             561             561

                 ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ..........................           1,621           1,621
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ.......             101             101
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ....................           1,236           1,236
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ.....             157             157
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ...................             297             297

                ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR.........................           5,929           5,929
BLAKELY MOUNTAIN DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR.           8,534           8,534
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR..................           1,864           1,864
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR....................           6,672           6,672
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.............           8,912           8,912
DEGRAY LAKE, AR.........................           6,881           6,881
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR........................           1,870           1,870
DIERKS LAKE, AR.........................           1,567           1,567
GILLHAM LAKE, AR........................           1,463           1,463
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR...................           6,444           6,444
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR......              74              74
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.......             448             448
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION          24,961          24,961
 SYSTEM, AR.............................
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR.......................           2,680           2,680
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR...........           4,659           4,659
NIMROD LAKE, AR.........................           2,020           2,020
NORFORK LAKE, AR........................           8,146           8,146
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR......................              13              13
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA....           7,507           7,507
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR......           5,188           5,188
WHITE RIVER, AR.........................              39              39
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR....................               3               3

               CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA....................           2,259           2,259
BUCHANAN DAM, H.V. EASTMAN LAKE, CA.....           1,919           1,919
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA..............           4,500           4,500
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA...           3,624           3,624
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND                  6,697           6,697
 CHANNEL, CA............................
FARMINGTON DAM, CA......................             450             450
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA............           2,018           2,018
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.............           1,905           1,905
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA.......           3,686           3,686
ISABELLA LAKE, CA.......................           1,080           1,080
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA......             265             265
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA....           5,053           5,053
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA...............             350             350
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA....................             331             331
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA....................           2,200           2,200
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA......................           3,971           3,971
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA           1,806           1,806
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA......................          17,200          17,200
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA....................           1,600           1,600
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA......................           3,218           3,218
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA...........           1,707           1,707
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA.....................          10,700          10,700
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA..           1,443           1,443
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS           1,382           1,382
 CONTROL), CA...........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL,              200             200
 CA.....................................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE,             901             901
 CA.....................................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT            3,000           3,000
 REMOVAL)...............................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA................           2,850           2,850
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA.           5,525           5,525
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA           2,500           2,500
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA...............           3,988           3,988
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA................           2,240           2,240
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA.....           1,587           1,587
SUCCESS LAKE, CA........................           2,328           2,328
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA..................           2,500           2,500
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA...........           2,069           2,069
YUBA RIVER, CA..........................             121             121

                COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO.....................             840             840
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO......................           1,445           1,445
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO...................           1,518           1,518
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO.......             489             489
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO...............           2,315           2,315
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO.....             748             748
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO.......................           2,012           2,012

               CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT.....................             518             518
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT................             884             884
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT..................             415             415
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT......................             956             956
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT.......             267             267
LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT..............           2,500           2,500
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT...............             595             595
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT...............             438             438
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT...........           1,050           1,050
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT..........             563             563
THOMASTON DAM, CT.......................             783             783
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT..................             655             655

                DELAWARE

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE.......              40              40
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO          17,375          17,375
 CHESAPEAKE BAY.........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE...........             200             200
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE...................           4,305           4,305

          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

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

                 FLORIDA

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL....................           4,700           4,700
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL........          14,444          14,444
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL AND AL..           1,600           1,600
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL.......           1,400           1,400
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.................           6,063           6,063
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE                    6,936           6,936
 SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA................
MIAMI HARBOR, FL........................           4,334           4,334
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL.................           3,000           3,000
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL...................           2,500           2,500
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL..............           3,084           3,084
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL...........           1,647           1,647
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL...........           3,250           3,250
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL.....              22              22
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL.           7,783           7,783
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................           8,150           8,150
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL...              80              80

                 GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA......................           7,301           7,301
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT              2,085           2,085
 RIVERS, GA, AL.........................
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA....................           3,000           3,000
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA...           8,611           8,611
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA................           7,999           7,999
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC................           9,903           9,903
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL                 15              15
 PROJECTS, GA...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA.......             120             120
J. STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC.......           9,546           9,546
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA...........             189             189
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND            8,488           8,488
 SC.....................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.....................          22,039          22,039
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA........              90              90
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL......           7,613           7,613

                 HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI................             238             238
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI.......             685             685
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI...........             737             737

                  IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID....................           1,260           1,260
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID..........           2,730           2,730
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID.......             330             330
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID.....................           2,350           2,350
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID.....             546             546

                ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN.....           3,709           3,709
CARLYLE LAKE, IL........................           5,462           5,462
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL......................           2,000           2,000
CHICAGO RIVER, IL.......................             528             528
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL...............             457             457
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND           32,727          32,727
 IN.....................................
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND            1,832           1,832
 IN.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL                 65              65
 PROJECTS, IL...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.......           2,549           2,549
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL..........           1,902           1,902
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.............           1,025           1,025
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL....................           5,412           5,412
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER          56,758          56,758
 AND MINNEAPOLIS........................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER          25,464          25,464
 AND MINNEAPOLIS........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL...........             104             104
REND LAKE, IL...........................           5,487           5,487
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    672             672
 WATERS, IL.............................
 
                 INDIANA
 
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN.....................           1,109           1,109
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN...............             176             176
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN....................           1,125           1,125
CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN................           1,250           1,250
INDIANA HARBOR, IN......................          10,915          10,915
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN.......             992             992
J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN................           1,126           1,126
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN...................           1,780           1,780
MONROE LAKE, IN.........................           1,194           1,194
PATOKA LAKE, IN.........................           1,089           1,089
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN...........             185             185
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN......................           1,091           1,091
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    138             138
 WATERS, IN.............................
 
                  IOWA
 
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA.....................           4,235           4,235
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA.......             728             728
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH,           7,767           7,767
 IA, KS, MO.............................
RATHBUN LAKE, IA........................           2,359           2,359
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA......           4,579           4,579
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA....................           5,489           5,489
 
                 KANSAS
 
CLINTON LAKE, KS........................           2,257           2,257
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS..................           2,115           2,115
EL DORADO LAKE, KS......................             831             831
ELK CITY LAKE, KS.......................             795             795
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS.....................           1,429           1,429
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS......................             835             835
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS.......             984             984
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS......           1,251           1,251
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS......................           1,513           1,513
MARION LAKE, KS.........................           2,578           2,578
MELVERN LAKE, KS........................           2,092           2,092
MILFORD LAKE, KS........................           2,113           2,113
PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS.......           1,485           1,485
PERRY LAKE, KS..........................           2,259           2,259
POMONA LAKE, KS.........................           2,053           2,053
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS.....             150             150
TORONTO LAKE, KS........................             904             904
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS...................           2,245           2,245
WILSON LAKE, KS.........................           1,515           1,515
 
                KENTUCKY
 
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN.           9,594           9,594
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY...................           2,454           2,454
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY....................           1,741           1,741
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY.......................           1,763           1,763
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY.....................           1,849           1,849
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY.......................             947             947
DEWEY LAKE, KY..........................           2,279           2,279
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY........              13              13
FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY               16              16
 AND IN.................................
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY.......................           2,023           2,023
GRAYSON LAKE, KY........................           1,554           1,554
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.............           2,104           2,104
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY....................           2,334           2,334
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.......           1,105           1,105
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY......................              10              10
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY...................           1,999           1,999
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY...................           1,194           1,194
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY..             244             244
NOLIN LAKE, KY..........................           2,675           2,675
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN,            34,665          34,665
 AND OH.................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL,              5,829           5,829
 IN, OH, PA, AND WV.....................
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY....................           1,224           1,224
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY....................           2,723           2,723
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY...................           1,198           1,198
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.....           7,987           7,987
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY.....................           1,528           1,528
 
                LOUISIANA
 
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE,                8,547           8,547
 BOEUF AND BLACK, LA....................
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA..............              92              92
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA..............           1,041           1,041
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP                 1,089           1,089
 WATERWAY, LA...........................
BAYOU PIERRE, LA........................              24              24
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA.............              15              15
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA.....              17              17
BAYOU TECHE, LA.........................             135             135
CADDO LAKE, LA..........................             216             216
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............          15,753          15,753
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA....................           1,695           1,695
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA..........          19,929          19,929
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA..............             990             990
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.......           1,002           1,002
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA........           8,434           8,434
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA..............              17              17
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA.................               5               5
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA.....................           1,319           1,319
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA.           1,423           1,423
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE             81,670          81,670
 GULF OF MEXICO.........................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA...........              46              46
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA...........             200             200
WALLACE LAKE, LA........................             232             232
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA....               9               9
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO                38              38
 BAYOU DU LAC, LA.......................
 
                  MAINE
 
DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME............           1,050           1,050
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME.......              95              95
PORTLAND HARBOR, ME.....................          13,000          13,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME...........             750             750
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     20              20
 WATERS, ME.............................
 
                MARYLAND
 
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT),          15,757          15,757
 MD.....................................
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL)....             325             325
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.........             115             115
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD.......              75              75
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV.......           1,724           1,724
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD...........             450             450
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD.....              62              62
WICOMICO RIVER, MD......................           1,500           1,500
 
              MASSACHUSETTS
 
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA.....................             646             646
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA......................           1,022           1,022
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA....................             599             599
CAPE COD CANAL, MA......................           8,694           8,694
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE                 322             322
 AREA, MA...............................
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA...................             285             285
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA.................             523             523
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA..................             607             607
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA.......             306             306
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA.....................             750             750
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA....................             813             813
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET                   365             365
 HURRICANE BARRIER......................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA...........           1,200           1,200
TULLY LAKE, MA..........................             644             644
WEST HILL DAM, MA.......................             690             690
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA......................             584             584
 
                MICHIGAN
 
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI..........             170             170
DETROIT RIVER, MI.......................           5,814           5,814
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI..................           1,358           1,358
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI......................             668             668
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI.......             200             200
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI...................              37              37
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI.....................             541             541
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI.....................             611             611
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI...........             670             670
SAGINAW RIVER, MI.......................           4,091           4,091
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI.....................              25              25
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI.....................             618             618
ST. MARYS RIVER, MI.....................          26,766          26,766
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                  2,653           2,653
 WATERS, MI.............................
 
                MINNESOTA
 
BIGSTONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD             272             272
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI.......           5,494           5,494
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN.......             387             387
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN             760             760
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.....................             275             275
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER          49,549          49,549
 AND MINNEAPOLIS........................
ORWELL LAKE, MN.........................             500             500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN...........              86              86
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN..................             152             152
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI            3,686           3,686
 RIVER, MN..............................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    462             462
 WATERS, MN.............................
TWO HARBORS, MN.........................             350             350
 
               MISSISSIPPI
 
BILOXI HARBOR, MS.......................           1,805           1,805
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS...............               1               1
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS..........             258             258
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.......             122             122
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS................              30              30
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS......................           1,568           1,568
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...................           8,785           8,785
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA..................             145             145
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS...........             177             177
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS.....................              11              11
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS...             125             125
YAZOO RIVER, MS.........................              26              26
 
                MISSOURI
 
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO...............              10              10
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE,           6,266           6,266
 MO.....................................
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO.....................           3,291           3,291
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO....           7,834           7,834
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.......           1,619           1,619
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.............           1,154           1,154
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO....................           1,093           1,093
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND            25,710          25,710
 MISSOURI RIVERS........................
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO...................              51              51
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO.................           2,170           2,170
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO...........              14              14
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO.....             854             854
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO.....................           1,312           1,312
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI                   1               1
 RIVER, MO..............................
STOCKTON LAKE, MO.......................           4,664           4,664
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR..............           8,254           8,254
 
                 MONTANA
 
FT. PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT...............           5,235           5,235
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT.......             169             169
LIBBY DAM, MT...........................           1,718           1,718
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT.....             118             118
 
                NEBRASKA
 
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE,            8,018           8,018
 NE AND SD..............................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE..................           6,256           6,256
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE.......             554             554
MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO                   81              81
 SIOUX CITY, IA.........................
PAPILLION CREEK, NE.....................             778             778
SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.........           1,025           1,025
 
                 NEVADA
 
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV.......              53              53
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA............           1,046           1,046
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV......             354             354
 
              NEW HAMPSHIRE
 
BLACKWATER DAM, NH......................             799             799
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH...............             762             762
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH..................             868             868
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH.............           1,343           1,343
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH.......              61              61
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH....................             943             943
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH...........             275             275
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH.................             776             776
 
               NEW JERSEY
 
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ......................             415             415
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ...................             395             395
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ............              15              15
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA,          23,290          23,290
 NJ, PA, AND DE.........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ.......             242             242
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ.....................             300             300
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC                   450             450
 RIVERS, NJ.............................
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ.             587             587
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ...........           1,610           1,610
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ              60              60
RARITAN RIVER, NJ.......................             220             220
SALEM RIVER, NJ.........................             100             100
SHARK RIVER, NJ.........................             400             400
 
               NEW MEXICO
 
ABIQUIU DAM, NM.........................           3,258           3,258
COCHITI LAKE, NM........................           5,256           5,256
CONCHAS LAKE, NM........................           2,864           2,864
GALISTEO DAM, NM........................             882             882
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM.......             759             759
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM....................           1,299           1,299
RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES                      2,503           2,503
 COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM..............
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.............           1,519           1,519
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM.....             547             547
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM......................             916             916
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL            1,580           1,580
 STUDY, NM..............................
 
                NEW YORK
 
ALMOND LAKE, NY.........................             635             635
ARKPORT DAM, NY.........................             352             352
BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY.....              60              60
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR,           1,335           1,335
 NY.....................................
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY..................              60              60
EAST RIVER, NY..........................             150             150
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY.................             100             100
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY....................             662             662
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY..............             100             100
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)................           4,500           4,500
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)..................           2,050           2,050
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY.......           1,171           1,171
JAMAICA BAY, NY.........................             100             100
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY.............               5               5
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY....................           3,926           3,926
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY....           7,297           7,297
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY.....................           5,857           5,857
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT                  9,236           9,236
 REMOVAL)...............................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF                 1,045           1,045
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT)...................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY...........           2,040           2,040
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY....................               5               5
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL                      686             686
 PROJECTS, NY...........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    579             579
 WATERS, NY.............................
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY..................             780             780
 
             NORTH CAROLINA
 
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC......           2,900           2,900
B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC......           1,679           1,679
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC....             489             489
FALLS LAKE, NC..........................           1,782           1,782
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC.......             261             261
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.............           1,365           1,365
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC................           5,800           5,800
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC...........             736             736
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC...................              50              50
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC..................             300             300
W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC.....           3,209           3,209
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...................          16,409          16,409
 
              NORTH DAKOTA
 
BOWMAN HALEY, ND........................             214             214
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND........          12,050          12,050
HOMME LAKE, ND..........................             296             296
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND.......             282             282
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND.....           1,476           1,476
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND.......................             835             835
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND.....             120             120
SOURIS RIVER, ND........................             341             341
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     28              28
 WATERS, ND.............................
 
                  OHIO
 
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH.....................           1,424           1,424
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH....................           1,810           1,810
BERLIN LAKE, OH.........................           2,084           2,084
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH...................           1,698           1,698
CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH...............           1,286           1,286
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH....................           8,959           8,959
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH.....................           1,001           1,001
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH.....................           1,468           1,468
DELAWARE LAKE, OH.......................           1,471           1,471
DILLON LAKE, OH.........................           1,484           1,484
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH.......             663             663
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..              37              37
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH.           1,096           1,096
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH.................           1,048           1,048
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH...............           8,527           8,527
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH....             467             467
OHIO-MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH......           1,856           1,856
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH....................           1,357           1,357
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH...........             305             305
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..              35              35
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH.....................             983             983
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    244             244
 WATERS, OH.............................
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH.......................           5,472           5,472
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH.....................             796             796
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH........             873             873
WILLIAM H. HARSHA LAKE, OH..............           1,586           1,586
 
                OKLAHOMA
 
ARCADIA LAKE, OK........................             521             521
BIRCH LAKE, OK..........................             809             809
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK.....................           2,425           2,425
CANTON LAKE, OK.........................           2,242           2,242
COPAN LAKE, OK..........................           1,352           1,352
EUFAULA LAKE, OK........................           5,494           5,494
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK....................           4,760           4,760
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK....................           1,086           1,086
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK..............             501             501
HEYBURN LAKE, OK........................             629             629
HUGO LAKE, OK...........................           1,716           1,716
HULAH LAKE, OK..........................           1,751           1,751
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK.......             155             155
KAW LAKE, OK............................           2,413           2,413
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK.......................          13,468          13,468
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION           5,552           5,552
 SYSTEM, OK.............................
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK........................           5,100           5,100
OPTIMA LAKE, OK.........................              49              49
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE                     133             133
 CHEROKEES, OK..........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK.....................           1,053           1,053
ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND                    5,476           5,476
 RESERVOIR, OK..........................
SARDIS LAKE, OK.........................           3,801           3,801
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK.....           1,000           1,000
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK.......................           2,012           2,012
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK................           5,055           5,055
WAURIKA LAKE, OK........................           1,616           1,616
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK..........           3,852           3,852
WISTER LAKE, OK.........................             738             738
 
                 OREGON
 
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR......................             937             937
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR.....................             579             579
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA......           7,039           7,039
COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS              28,066          28,066
 BELOW VANCOUVER........................
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA..          19,277          19,277
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND             931             931
 THE DALLES, OR.........................
COOS BAY, OR............................           5,843           5,843
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR..................           1,266           1,266
COUGAR LAKE, OR.........................           1,934           1,934
DETROIT LAKE, OR........................           1,008           1,008
DORENA LAKE, OR.........................           1,040           1,040
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR.....................           3,602           3,602
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR.....................           1,791           1,791
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR............           4,321           4,321
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR....................           1,257           1,257
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL                 20              20
 PROJECTS, OR...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR.......             590             590
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA........           4,329           4,329
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR..................           2,168           2,168
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR.....................           3,866           3,866
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..........           5,872           5,872
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR...........             400             400
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR.....              98              98
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                  9,695           9,695
 WATERS, OR.............................
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR             110             110
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR...................             677             677
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR..............           2,780           2,780
 
              PENNSYLVANIA
 
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA.....................           4,317           4,317
ALVIN R. BUSH DAM, PA...................             747             747
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA...............             351             351
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA.....................           1,570           1,570
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA.....................           2,688           2,688
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA................           1,252           1,252
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA.....................           2,269           2,269
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA..................           1,632           1,632
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA...................             825             825
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO                  920             920
 TRENTON, NJ............................
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA......           1,725           1,725
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA............             898             898
FRANCIS E. WALTER DAM, PA...............           1,156           1,156
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR,              320             320
 PA.....................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA.......           1,117           1,117
JOHNSTOWN, PA...........................              41              41
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA..           1,777           1,777
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA.....................           1,316           1,316
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA.................           3,333           3,333
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA...................          13,267          13,267
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH, AND            20,362          20,362
 WV.....................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH,                682             682
 AND WV.................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA...........              80              80
PROMPTON LAKE, PA.......................             492             492
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA........................              35              35
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA.......................           4,206           4,206
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA.....              46              46
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA....................             100             100
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA.................           2,203           2,203
STILLWATER LAKE, PA.....................             511             511
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    101             101
 WATERS, PA.............................
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA.................           2,496           2,496
TIONESTA LAKE, PA.......................           1,735           1,735
UNION CITY LAKE, PA.....................             449             449
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA.................           1,419           1,419
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA................             729             729
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD......           2,451           2,451
 
              RHODE ISLAND
 
FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI           2,030           2,030
GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI.......             250             250
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI.......              45              45
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI...........             500             500
WOONSOCKET, RI..........................             679             679
 
             SOUTH CAROLINA
 
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...................          15,883          15,883
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.....           4,590           4,590
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC.......              65              65
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC...........             875             875
 
              SOUTH DAKOTA
 
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD...........           9,567           9,567
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD.....................             453             453
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.............             394             394
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD.           8,848           8,848
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD.......             139             139
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN................             583             583
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND..........          11,215          11,215
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD.....             120             120
 
                TENNESSEE
 
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN....................           5,299           5,299
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN...............           8,369           8,369
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN......           6,430           6,430
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN....................           6,650           6,650
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.......             103             103
J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN...           4,622           4,622
NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR,                  10              10
 LAKE COUNTY, TN........................
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN............           9,755           9,755
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.....................          20,726          20,726
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN...................             109             109
 
                  TEXAS
 
AQUILLA LAKE, TX........................           1,176           1,176
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE                 1,529           1,529
 CONTROL--AREA VI.......................
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX............           3,011           3,011
BARDWELL LAKE, TX.......................           1,915           1,915
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX................           1,398           1,398
BELTON LAKE, TX.........................           3,486           3,486
BENBROOK LAKE, TX.......................           2,313           2,313
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX................           3,560           3,560
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.......           2,862           2,862
CANYON LAKE, TX.........................           3,321           3,321
CEDAR BAYOU, TX.........................             227             227
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX.............             409             409
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.........           8,129           8,129
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX............           7,137           7,137
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT,               42              42
 TX.....................................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES,            3,529           3,529
 TX.....................................
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.....................           8,848           8,848
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX........           3,914           3,914
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX...........             363             363
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX................           2,298           2,298
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX......................           2,696           2,696
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX..........          25,580          25,580
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX....................           1,895           1,895
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX................          19,701          19,701
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX.......           1,863           1,863
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX....................           1,736           1,736
JOE POOL LAKE, TX.......................           1,309           1,309
LAKE KEMP, TX...........................             241             241
LAVON LAKE, TX..........................           3,017           3,017
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX......................           3,295           3,295
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX..............           4,920           4,920
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX..................           3,151           3,151
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE                     2,303           2,303
 GEORGETOWN, TX.........................
O.C. FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX............           1,011           1,011
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX......................           1,148           1,148
PROCTOR LAKE, TX........................           2,454           2,454
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX...........             225             225
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX....................           1,493           1,493
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX..............          19,591          19,591
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX.......           5,881           5,881
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX.....             224             224
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX.....................           3,190           3,190
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX...............           2,040           2,040
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX.............           2,234           2,234
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX...             100             100
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B.A. STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX           2,769           2,769
WACO LAKE, TX...........................           3,036           3,036
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX....................           2,482           2,482
WHITNEY LAKE, TX........................           6,725           6,725
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX..........           3,513           3,513
 
                  UTAH
 
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT.......             103             103
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT.....             642             642
 
                 VERMONT
 
BALL MOUNTAIN, VT.......................           1,016           1,016
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT.......             208             208
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY....              30              30
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT.................           1,001           1,001
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT..............             854             854
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT......................             770             770
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT...................             683             683
 
                VIRGINIA
 
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA.           2,260           2,260
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA.           1,110           1,110
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA..................             329             329
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA.......           2,203           2,203
HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS            1,682           1,682
 HARBOR, VA.............................
HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF                      75              75
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS)..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA.......             349             349
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.................           3,948           3,948
JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC............          10,174          10,174
JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA.           2,608           2,608
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA.....................             100             100
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA......................          10,077          10,077
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA......             547             547
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA.......................           4,834           4,834
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA...........           1,373           1,373
RUDEE INLET, VA.........................             100             100
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, VA...             110             110
 
               WASHINGTON
 
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA....................             653             653
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA..             851             851
GRAYS HARBOR, WA........................           9,778           9,778
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA...................           3,187           3,187
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.............           4,237           4,237
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL                 70              70
 PROJECTS, WA...........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA.......             630             630
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA..........           8,646           8,646
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA...........           2,341           2,341
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA..........           3,062           3,062
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA.......           2,603           2,603
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA.....................           2,243           2,243
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.             266             266
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA....................           3,698           3,698
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA...........             595             595
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA....           1,057           1,057
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA....................           1,140           1,140
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA.....             453             453
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA......................             957             957
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA.................             273             273
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                     55              55
 WATERS, WA.............................
TACOMA HARBOR, WA.......................           1,033           1,033
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA..............             144             144
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR......           3,196           3,196
 
              WEST VIRGINIA
 
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV.....................           1,648           1,648
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV......................           1,885           1,885
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV.....................           2,776           2,776
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV......................           2,052           2,052
ELKINS, WV..............................              32              32
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV.......             389             389
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV........          10,164          10,164
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY, AND            41,137          41,137
 OH.....................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY,              3,053           3,053
 AND OH.................................
R.D. BAILEY LAKE, WV....................           2,576           2,576
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV..............           1,184           1,184
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV...................           2,642           2,642
SUTTON LAKE, WV.........................           2,674           2,674
TYGART LAKE, WV.........................           1,399           1,399
 
                WISCONSIN
 
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI................             814             814
FOX RIVER, WI...........................           1,949           1,949
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI....................           3,180           3,180
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI.......              51              51
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI.....................              14              14
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI...........             288             288
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN                 19              19
 SHIP CANAL, WI.........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                    540             540
 WATERS, WI.............................
 
                 WYOMING
 
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY.......              59              59
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY.................           2,356           2,356
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY.....             119             119
                                         -------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER          2,220,386       2,220,386
       STATES...........................
 
             REMAINING ITEMS
 
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK.....  ..............  ..............
    NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE..............  ..............           5,000
        DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL...  ..............           7,000
        INLAND WATERWAYS................  ..............          12,000
        SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE     ..............          30,000
         NAVIGATION.....................
    OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES...........  ..............           5,000
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH.......             690             690
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND                    4,750           4,750
 EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT...................
BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M         ..............  ..............
 BUSINESS PROGRAMS......................
    STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM.........           1,000           1,000
    PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT            4,000           4,000
     PROGRAM............................
    RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT                  1,650           1,650
     PROGRAM............................
    OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION...             392             392
COASTAL AND OCEAN DATA SYSTEM...........           3,000           5,000
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM..........           2,700           2,700
RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS                5,000           5,000
 PROJECTS...............................
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)....           4,500           4,500
DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE..........          11,857          11,857
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE............          12,000          12,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE                 1,150           1,150
 MONITORING SYSTEM......................
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL              6,300           6,300
 RESEARCH [DOER]........................
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT              2,820           2,820
 PROGRAM [DOTS].........................
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM....             270             270
FACILITY PROTECTION [CISP]..............           5,500           5,500
FERC HYDROPOWER COORDINATION............           3,000           3,000
FISH AND WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH                   4,300           4,300
 HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT.................
GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.............           1,080           1,080
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS.......           3,420           3,420
INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK            7,000           7,000
 FORCE/HURRICANE........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD             30,603          30,603
 CONTROL PROJECTS.......................
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION                 3,920           4,170
 PROJECTS...............................
NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY........          10,000          10,000
NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL                6,530           6,530
 RESOURCES MANAGEMENT...................
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM........           6,300           8,300
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO            10,000          10,000
 RISK ASSESSMENT).......................
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM            6,200           6,200
 [NEPP].................................
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR                    571             571
 REALLOCATIONS..........................
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT...             300             300
PROTECT, CLEAR, AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS.              50              50
REDUCING CIVIL WORKS VULNERABILITY......           8,000  ..............
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS...............             500             500
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS..........           4,771           4,771
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION..             825             825
RECREATIONONESTOP [R1S] NATIONAL                      65              65
 RECREATION RESERVATION.................
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM....           1,800           4,000
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR                 300             300
 REHABILITATION.........................
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT                   500             500
 [WOTS].................................
                                         -------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS.........         177,614         235,064
 
REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE......  ..............         -51,450
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..       2,398,000       2,404,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Zebra and Quagga Mussels.--The Committee understands the 
challenges posed by the invasion of quagga and zebra mussels in 
various places across the country, and that invasion has not 
yet occurred in the Pacific Northwest and Lake Tahoe. Given the 
significant Federal assets in the region, it would seem prudent 
to determine the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure. The 
Committee recognizes the work that is underway, but believes 
more can and should be done to prevent invasion. Portions of 
the country are already dealing with these invasive species and 
the lessons learned should be applied to developing a strategy 
of minimizing the impacts to vulnerable infrastructure in this 
region. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers in 
partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, to 
continue its efforts to develop invasive mussel vulnerability 
assessments for federally owned hydropower projects, in the 
Pacific Northwest, including an estimate of the annual cost of 
protection and maintenance of this infrastructure, if 
applicable. Further, the Committee urges the Corps, where 
appropriate, to assist the States in their efforts to prevent 
the spread of invasive mussels to Federal projects in the 
region.
    Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The fiscal year 2013 
budget request does not fund operation, maintenance, and 
rehabilitation of our Nation's aging infrastructure 
sufficiently to ensure continued competitiveness in a global 
marketplace. Federal navigation channels maintained at only a 
fraction of authorized dimensions, and navigation locks and 
hydropower facilities well beyond their design life result in 
economic inefficiencies and risks infrastructure failure, which 
cause substantial economic losses. The Committee believes that 
investing in operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
infrastructure today will save taxpayers money in the future.
    The Committee recommendation includes additional funds to 
continue ongoing projects and activities including periodic 
dredging of ports and harbors. None of these funds may be used 
for any item where funding was specifically denied. The intent 
of these funds is for ongoing work that either was not included 
in the administration's request or was inadequately budgeted. 
The Committee directs that priority in allocating these funds 
be given to completing ongoing work maintaining authorized 
depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels, including 
where contaminated sediments are present, and for addressing 
critical maintenance backlog. Particular emphasis should be 
placed on projects where there is a U.S. Coast Guard presence; 
that will enhance national, regional, or local economic 
development; or that will promote job growth or international 
competitiveness.
    The Committee is concerned that the administration's 
criteria for navigation maintenance does not allow small, 
remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways to properly 
compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee 
urges the Corps to revise the criteria used for determining 
which navigation maintenance projects are funded in order to 
develop a reasonable and equitable allocation under this 
account. The criteria should include the economic impact that 
these projects provide to local and regional economies, in 
particular, those with national defense or public health and 
safety importance.
    Funding associated with each category may be allocated to 
any eligible project within that category; funding associated 
with each subcategory may be allocated only to eligible 
projects within that subcategory. The list of subcategories is 
not meant to be exhaustive. Priority in allocating these funds 
should consider the following: number of jobs created directly 
by the funded activity; benefits to the local, regional, or 
national economy; ability to obligate the funds allocated 
within the fiscal year; ability to complete the project, 
separable element, or project phase within the funds allocated; 
and risk of imminent failure or closure of the facility.
    Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall 
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
work plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed. 
The Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work 
plan showing all the ongoing projects that were considered 
eligible and could have used funding for fiscal year 2013 and 
the reasons why these items were considered as being less 
competitive for inclusion in the work plan.
    Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability.--No funding is included 
for this new item.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $193,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     205,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     199,000,000

    An appropriation of $199,000,000 is recommended for the 
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
    This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred 
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, 
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors 
Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977 
Public Law 95-217, and the Marine Protection, Research and 
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Public Law 92-532.
    The appropriation helps maintain program performance, 
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships 
with States and local communities through watershed planning 
efforts.
    The Committee believes compensatory mitigation is 
appropriate for a permitted activity when that activity damages 
or destroys the value of wetlands. However, the Committee is 
concerned about the unevenness with which compensatory 
mitigation for permitted activities is being addressed around 
the country and the lack of consideration for how the various 
methods can disproportionately impact vital public works 
projects and economic development efforts. In the Lower 
Mississippi River Valley, the ``modified Charleston method'' is 
being used for determining compensatory mitigation. In many 
cases this method is requiring permittees to acquire three 
acres of mitigation for every one acre of habitat that is 
damaged as a result of a permitted action. This has the impact 
of increasing the cost of a project by 300-400 percent. The 
Committee questions the reasonableness of this method of 
compensatory mitigation. The Corps is directed to report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of 
enactment of this act the ways in which compensatory mitigation 
are computed in the various field operating agencies of the 
Corps around the Nation. Additionally, this report should 
provide recommendations as to how compensatory mitigation can 
be more equitably computed across the Corps, as well as how 
economic interests are being considered. This should also 
include proposals for alternative mitigation strategies and 
broader options to meet mitigation requirements that would 
ensure continued viability for essential community improvement 
projects.

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $109,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     104,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     109,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $109,000,000 
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2013.
    The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites 
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was 
transferred from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps of 
Engineers in the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-62.
    FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program 
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic 
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup 
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the 
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. 
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible 
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not 
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real 
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
    The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the 
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its 
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used 
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming 
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program.
    The Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing 
completion.

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $27,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,000,000

    The Committee has recommended $30,000,000 for the Flood 
Control and Coastal Emergencies account. This account provides 
funds for preparedness activities for natural and other 
disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting and rescue 
operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore protection 
work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean water 
where the source has been contaminated or where adequate 
supplies of water are needed for consumption.

                            GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $185,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     182,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     182,000,000

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

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

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

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

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

    Section 101. The bill includes language concerning 
reprogramming guidelines.
    Section 102. The bill includes language concerning 
continuing contracts and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
    Section 103. The bill includes language concerning report 
notifications.
    Section 104. The bill includes a provision requested by the 
administration providing the Corps of Engineers authorization 
for emergency measures to exclude Asian Carp from the Great 
Lakes. It should be noted that when considering this language 
for inclusion in this bill that the Committee did not consider 
hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes Basin from the 
Mississippi River Basin to be an emergency measure. The 
Committee believes that the issue of hydrologic separation 
should be fully studied by the Corps of Engineers and vetted by 
the appropriate congressional authorizing committees and 
specifically enacted into law rather than have implementation 
be attempted through this limited provision.
    Section 105. The bill includes language concerning funding 
transfers requested by the administration related to fish 
hatcheries.
    Section 106. The bill includes language concerning a 
project cost increase requested by the administration for the 
Olmsted Lock and Dam Project.
    Section 107. The bill includes language concerning a 
project deauthorization in Massachusetts.
    Section 108. The bill includes language concerning a 
project deauthorization in Illinois.
    Section 109. The bill includes language concerning the 
deauthorization of a portion of a project in Rhode Island.
    Section 110. The bill contains language concerning a 
project cost increase requested by the administration for the 
Little Calumet, Indiana, project.
    Section 111. The bill contains language concerning the 
combining of two projects and the sharing of credits between 
two projects in Florida.
    Section 112. The bill contains language concerning 
expediting a study on preventing the spread of Asian Carp into 
the Great Lakes.

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $28,704,000
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................................
Committee recommendation\2\.............................      21,000,000

\1\The fiscal year 2013 budget request recommended $21,000,000 for the 
Central Utah Project Completion Account as a separate account under the 
Bureau of Reclamation.
\2\The Committee elected to retain the Central Utah Project Completion 
Account as a separate account under the Department of Interior.

    While the fiscal year 2013 budget request recommended 
funding for the Central Utah Project Completion Act as a 
separate account under the Bureau of Reclamation, the Committee 
recommendation provides the budget request level of funding as 
a separate account within the Department of Interior as has 
been the tradition for nearly 20 years.
    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2013 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
totals $21,000,000. An appropriation of $19,800,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $1,200,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. 
The Committee recommendation provides $1,300,000 for program 
administration and oversight.
    Legislative language is included which allows up to 
$1,500,000 of the funds provided to be used for administrative 
costs.
    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central 
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes 
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and 
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation 
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. 
The act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the 
act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation 
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.

                         Bureau of Reclamation


                              INTRODUCTION

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

      OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST

    The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Bureau of 
Reclamation is composed of $1,034,018,000 in new budget 
authority. The budget request is $19,701,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted amount.
    The budget request for Reclamation includes $21,000,000 for 
the Central Utah Project that the administration has proposed 
to integrate under Reclamation's jurisdiction as a separate 
account. The Committee has elected to retain the Central Utah 
Project as a separate account under the Department of Interior. 
With the Central Utah Project funding deleted, the fiscal year 
2013 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation is composed 
of $1,013,018,000 in new budget authority, $34,701,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount.
    The Committee believes that the budget request is 
inadequate to fund the water and power needs in the West. Aging 
infrastructure continues to be a major concern as to whether 
projects will continue to provide the benefits to the economy 
for which they were constructed. New stresses on water supplies 
from population growth to drought require innovative ways to 
wring every bit of efficiency that is possible out of the 
existing infrastructure. While rural water funding is increased 
over last year's request, it is still inadequate to allow any 
of these projects to make substantial progress towards 
completion.
    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund is proposed at 
$39,883,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is a decrease of 
$13,185,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. This 
account is primarily funded from revenues collected from water 
and power customers. Levels of funding in this account are 
based on a 3-year rolling average of revenues collected.
    The California Bay-Delta Restoration account is proposed at 
$36,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. This is down $3,651,000 from 
the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount.
    The Policy and Administration account is requested at 
$60,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount.

                      WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $895,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013\1\................................     818,635,000
Committee recommendation\2\.............................     892,135,000

\1\The budget request includes the funding for the Central Utah Project 
Completion Act.
\2\The Committee recommendation does not include funding for the Central 
Utah Project Completion Act within this account as proposed in the 
budget request, but does include the amounts proposed for Indian Water 
Rights Settlements and the San Joaquin Restoration proposed as separate 
accounts in the budget request.

    An appropriation of $892,135,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for the Bureau of Reclamation. This includes the 
budget request for Water and Related Resources. Also included 
within this amount are the proposed funding levels for Indian 
Water Rights Settlements and the San Joaquin River Restoration. 
As indicated, the Committee does not adopt the administration's 
proposal to include funding for the Central Utah Project under 
this account.
    The water and related resources account supports the 
development, management, and restoration of water and related 
natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account 
includes funds for operating and maintaining existing 
facilities to obtain the greatest overall level of benefits, to 
protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to 
improve the use of water and related natural resources. Work 
will be done in partnership and cooperation with non-Federal 
entities and other Federal agencies.
    The Committee has divided underfinancing between the 
Resources Management subaccount and the Facilities Operation 
and Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the 
underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied 
uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon 
applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming 
procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule 
slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen conditions.

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

    The budget for the Bureau of Reclamation consists of 
individual line-items of projects. As presented by the 
President, the budget contains 195 specific line-item requests 
for directed spending by the administration. An additional 46 
line-item requests for funding by the administration are for 
nationwide line-items. All of these line-items were specific 
requests by the administration to be funded in fiscal year 
2013. The administration did not request these funds 
programmatically, but rather requested them for a specific 
project in a specific location for a specific purpose.
    Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous 
with earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the 
Bureau of Reclamation where the majority of the budget request 
is based on individual line-item studies and projects. Due to 
this ongoing debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all 
congressionally directed spending requests for fiscal year 
2013. Accordingly, the administration has total discretion as 
to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be 
spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The 
Committee has retained the traditional table for the Water and 
Related Resources Account delineating the line-items requested 
by the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in 
the administration's budget request, the Committee has also 
inserted some additional line-item funding under the Regional 
Programs heading for specific categories of studies or projects 
that the Committee feels are underrepresented in the 
administration's budget request. Reclamation has discretion 
within the guidelines provided as to which line-items this 
additional funding will be applied to. The Committee has not 
included any congressionally directed spending as defined in 
section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the standing rules of the Senate.

                               BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Budget estimate            Committee
                                                                 ------------------------     recommendation
                          Project title                                                  -----------------------
                                                                   Resources  Facilities   Resources  Facilities
                                                                  management     OM&R     management     OM&R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                             ARIZONA
 
AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT..............  ..........      12,075  ..........      12,075
COLORADO RIVER BASIN--CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT...................       7,456         436       7,456         436
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM......................       1,907  ..........       1,907  ..........
SALT RIVER PROJECT..............................................         684         231         684         231
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT............          78  ..........          78  ..........
SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY.....................         500  ..........         500  ..........
YUMA AREA PROJECTS..............................................       1,585      20,430       1,585      20,430
 
                           CALIFORNIA
 
CACHUMA PROJECT.................................................         678         653         678         653
CENTRAL VALLY PROJECT:
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/MORMON ISLAND......       1,480       9,086       1,480       9,086
    AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT....................................          33       3,132          33       3,132
    DELTA DIVISION..............................................       6,577       5,342       6,577       5,342
    EAST SIDE DIVISION..........................................       1,246       2,602       1,246       2,602
    FRIANT DIVISION.............................................       2,252       3,307       2,252       3,307
        SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT................  ..........  ..........      12,000  ..........
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS..............................       9,508         935       9,508         935
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE......  ..........      17,230  ..........      17,230
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION...................................       4,153       1,261       4,153       1,261
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION.........................................         411         166         411         166
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION........................................          50  ..........          50  ..........
    SHASTA DIVISION.............................................         416       7,956         416       7,956
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION......................................      14,527       4,110      14,527       4,110
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS..................................       1,239       6,965       1,239       6,965
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT....................      17,740       6,313      17,740       6,313
ORLAND PROJECT..................................................  ..........         633  ..........         633
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.....................................         300  ..........         300  ..........
SOLANO PROJECT..................................................       1,356       2,256       1,356       2,256
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT...........................................         348          29         348          29
 
                            COLORADO
 
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT.........................................       1,146       1,188       1,146       1,188
COLLBRAN PROJECT................................................         242       1,511         242       1,511
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT...................................         277      13,369         277      13,369
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT........................................         129         171         129         171
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT......................................         324       8,494         324       8,494
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT--ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT.............       3,000  ..........       3,000  ..........
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.............................         631       1,338         631       1,338
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT.......................  ..........       4,106  ..........       4,106
MANCOS PROJECT..................................................          95         121          95         121
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II...........................         109       2,519         109       2,519
PINE RIVER PROJECT..............................................         179         288         179         288
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT.........................................         349       4,834         349       4,834
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT.............................................         783         209         783         209
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.........................         265  ..........         265  ..........
 
                              IDAHO
 
BOISE AREA PROJECTS.............................................       2,878       2,696       2,878       2,696
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT................      18,000  ..........      18,000  ..........
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS......................................         689          30         689          30
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS..........................................       2,160       7,417       2,160       7,417
PRESTON BENCH PROJECT...........................................           4           8           4           8
 
                             KANSAS
 
WICHITA PROJECT--CHENEY DIVISION................................          46         534          46         534
WICHITA PROJECT--EQUUS BEDS DIVISION............................          50  ..........          50  ..........
 
                             MONTANA
 
FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM............       7,500  ..........       7,500  ..........
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT............................................  ..........         763  ..........         763
HUNTLEY PROJECT.................................................          32          56          32          56
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT.......................................         364          36         364          36
MILK RIVER PROJECT..............................................         348       1,591         348       1,591
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER SYSTEM.............       4,000  ..........       4,000  ..........
SUN RIVER PROJECT...............................................          53         271          53         271
 
                            NEBRASKA
 
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT............................................          16         131          16         131
 
                             NEVADA
 
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT..........................................       4,199       5,317       4,199       5,317
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.........................         112  ..........         112  ..........
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM................................         206  ..........         206  ..........
 
                           NEW MEXICO
 
CARLSBAD PROJECT................................................       2,670       1,090       2,670       1,090
EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY...........................       1,978  ..........       1,978  ..........
JICARILLA APACHE RURAL WATER SYSTEM.............................         500  ..........         500  ..........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT.......................................       9,838      12,699       9,838      12,699
RIO GRANDE PROJECT..............................................       1,127       4,249       1,127       4,249
RIO GRANDE PUEBLOS PROJECT......................................         250  ..........         250  ..........
TUCUMCARI PROJECT...............................................          45          45          45          45
 
                          NORTH DAKOTA
 
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT..............      19,106       6,413      19,106       6,413
 
                            OKLAHOMA
 
ARBUCKLE PROJECT................................................          66         179          66         179
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT.............................................          37         801          37         801
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT...........................................          25         560          25         560
NORMAN PROJECT..................................................          17         477          17         477
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT...........................................          95       1,483          95       1,483
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT.............................................          57         608          57         608
 
                             OREGON
 
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT...........................................         367         400         367         400
DESCHUTES PROJECT...............................................         348         328         348         328
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS.........................................         689         220         689         220
KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION AGREEMENT.............................       7,101  ..........       7,101  ..........
KLAMATH PROJECT.................................................      16,503       2,130      16,503       2,130
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION......................         478         285         478         285
TUALATIN PROJECT................................................         102         158         102         158
UMATILLA PROJECT................................................         787       3,019         787       3,019
 
                          SOUTH DAKOTA
 
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM..............................       4,500  ..........       4,500  ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT..................................  ..........          15  ..........          15
MNI WICONI PROJECT..............................................      23,000      12,200      23,000      12,200
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT............................................  ..........          92  ..........          92
 
                              TEXAS
 
BALMORHEA PROJECT...............................................          43          15          43          15
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT..........................................          80         121          80         121
LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PRO-  GRAM........          50  ..........          50  ..........
NUECES RIVER PROJECT............................................          47         636          47         636
SAN ANGELO PROJECT..............................................          56         537          56         537
 
                              UTAH
 
HYRUM PROJECT...................................................         238         145         238         145
MOON LAKE PROJECT...............................................         102          68         102          68
NEWTON PROJECT..................................................          41          82          41          82
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT.............................................         220         229         220         229
PROVO RIVER PROJECT.............................................       1,213         415       1,213         415
SANPETE PROJECT.................................................          60          11          60          11
SCOFIELD PROJECT................................................         253          55         253          55
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT.......................................         376          40         376          40
WEBER BASIN PROJECT.............................................         966         873         966         873
WEBER RIVER PROJECT.............................................          76          75          76          75
 
                           WASHINGTON
 
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT..........................................       3,595       5,436       3,595       5,436
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS........................................         411          52         411          52
YAKIMA PROJECT..................................................         801       6,617         801       6,617
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT....................       9,500  ..........       9,500  ..........
 
                             WYOMING
 
KENDRICK PROJECT................................................         117       4,736         117       4,736
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT............................................         240       1,340         240       1,340
SHOSHONE PROJECT................................................          75         792          75         792
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES..............................     230,956     231,872     242,956     231,872
 
                         REMAINING ITEMS
 
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
    RURAL WATER.................................................  ..........  ..........      15,000  ..........
    FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS...............................  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........
    WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY STUDIES, PROJECTS...........  ..........  ..........       8,000  ..........
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE....................  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........
    FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILITATION.......  ..........  ..........  ..........       9,300
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I..........  ..........      10,706  ..........      10,706
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I..........       8,000  ..........       8,000  ..........
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 5................       4,463       4,817       4,463       4,817
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 8................       4,315  ..........       4,315  ..........
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT................         537  ..........         537  ..........
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY PROGRAM...............  ..........       1,100  ..........       1,100
    INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION...................  ..........      67,000  ..........      67,000
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS..............................  ..........      19,350  ..........      19,350
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM............................  ..........  ..........         500  ..........
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM................  ..........       1,300  ..........       1,300
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM..............      18,890  ..........      18,890  ..........
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION............................       1,670  ..........       1,670  ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES..............................  ..........       8,760  ..........       8,760
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM.........................  ..........       1,300  ..........       1,300
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES.....................................       2,532  ..........       2,532  ..........
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS:
    AAMODT......................................................  ..........  ..........       5,000  ..........
    CROW........................................................  ..........  ..........      10,000  ..........
    NAVAJO-GALLUP...............................................  ..........  ..........      25,000  ..........
    TAOS........................................................  ..........  ..........       4,000  ..........
    WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE.......................................  ..........  ..........       2,500  ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...............................       8,702  ..........       8,702  ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.........................      27,190  ..........      27,190  ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS..........................  ..........         871  ..........         871
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM.................................       6,393  ..........       6,393  ..........
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING...............       2,409  ..........       2,409  ..........
OPERATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT................................       1,007       1,210       1,007       1,210
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM--OTHER PICK SLOAN.............       3,345      39,067       3,345      39,067
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES..........................................       3,623         307       3,623         307
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM................................         666         206         666         206
RECLAMATION-WIDE AGING INFRASTRUCTURE...........................  ..........       7,300  ..........  ..........
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION..................................       2,311  ..........       2,311  ..........
RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.........       2,508  ..........       2,508  ..........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
    DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM.................       2,000         998       2,000         998
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM..............................      10,050  ..........      10,050  ..........
SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES........................................  ..........      26,900  ..........      26,900
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL SUPPORT...........          97  ..........          97  ..........
WATERSMART PROGRAM:
    WATERSMART GRANTS...........................................      21,500  ..........      21,500  ..........
    WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM...................       5,886  ..........       5,886  ..........
    COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT............................         250  ..........         250  ..........
    BASIN STUDIES...............................................       6,000  ..........       6,000  ..........
    TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM:
        COMMISSONER'S OFFICE TITLE XVI..........................      16,560  ..........      16,560  ..........
        PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE........         200  ..........         200  ..........
        LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT, CA.....................         500  ..........         500  ..........
        LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT, CA...........         500  ..........         500  ..........
        SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM, CA............       2,300  ..........       2,300  ..........
        SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM.......         211  ..........         211  ..........
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS...........................     164,615     191,192     244,615     193,192
 
UNDERFINANCING..................................................  ..........  ..........     -11,759      -8,741
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES..................          818,635
                                                                          892,135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Central Valley Project, Friant Division, San Joaquin 
Restoration.--The Committee has chosen not to include a 
separate account for this item. Rather it is being funded as a 
sub-element under the Friant Division of the Central Valley 
Project. The Committee believes that this is prudent to keep 
these funds within the Water and Related Resources account 
maximizing the flexibility of the funding.
    Indian Water Rights Settlements Account.--The Committee has 
chosen not to include a separate account for this work. The 
Committee recognizes that these are legal settlements with the 
affected tribes, however, believe it is prudent to keep these 
items within the Water and Related Resources Account. Beyond 
the actual water rights settlement funding, many of these 
settlements included construction components very similar to 
rural water projects funded elsewhere in this account. The 
Committee understands that, due to the way the settlements were 
structured, some of the discretionary funding may not be 
obligated in fiscal year 2013 and will be carried over into 
later years. The Committee urges Reclamation to minimize this 
practice to the extent practicable and within the confines of 
these settlements. To maintain the visibility of these 
projects, the Committee has included the five projects under 
the Regional Programs heading with a subheading called Indian 
Water Rights Settlements.
    Kettleman City, California.--The Committee is concerned by 
the immediate and long-term public health threat posed by 
benzene and arsenic contamination of groundwater that the 
Kettleman City Community Service District relies on to supply 
its 1,500 residents. Despite the multi-year efforts of the 
Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water 
Resources, Kings County, and Central Valley Project and State 
Water Project contractors to identify an alternative source of 
clean drinking water and means for delivery, the problem 
persists. The Committee urges the Secretary of the Interior, 
acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and in collaboration 
with state and local entities, including the California 
Department of Public Health, and California's State Water 
Resources Control Board, to develop and implement a plan to 
provide the community with a reliable supply of uncontaminated 
source water in the amount of 900 acre-feet no later than 180 
days following enactment of this Act.
    Expedite Water Transfers.--The Committee urges the 
Secretary of the Interior to take all necessary actions to 
facilitate and expedite transfers of Central Valley Project 
water in accordance with this Act and other applicable 
provisions of Federal and state law, including Federal 
reclamation law and the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969. To ensure the expeditious review of water transfer 
applications, the Secretary, acting through the Bureau of 
Reclamation, is urged to adopt a policy to require Reclamation 
to determine whether a written transfer proposal is complete 
within 45 days after the date of submission of such proposal by 
a contracting district. If Reclamation determines that a 
proposal is incomplete, Reclamation shall notify the applicant 
and the Secretary shall state with specificity what must be 
added or revised in order for such proposal to be considered 
complete.
    Sierra Nevada Forest Watersheds.--The Committee directs the 
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of 
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Director of the United States 
Geological Survey, and in cooperation with the Secretary of 
Agriculture, to provide an assessment of the scientific 
literature regarding current or proposed national forest 
management practices in the Sierra Nevadas that could 
potentially generate water supply or other benefits or impacts 
to the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project. This 
assessment should include cost-benefit analysis of potential 
forest management actions that would be mutually beneficial to 
national forest lands and water supply yield and, if merited, 
recommendations for further congressional action.
    Zebra and Quagga Mussels.--The Committee understands the 
challenges posed by the invasion of quagga and zebra mussels in 
various places across the country, and that invasion has not 
yet occurred in the Pacific Northwest and Lake Tahoe. Given the 
significant Federal assets in the region, it is prudent to 
determine the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure. The 
Committee recognizes the work that is underway, but believes 
more can and should be done to prevent invasion. Portions of 
the country are already dealing with these invasive species and 
the lessons learned should be applied to develop a strategy of 
minimizing the impacts to vulnerable infrastructure in this 
region. The Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation, in 
partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, to 
continue its efforts to develop invasive mussel vulnerability 
assessments for federally owned hydropower projects, in the 
Pacific Northwest, including an estimate of the annual cost of 
protection and maintenance of this infrastructure, if 
applicable. Further, the Committee urges Reclamation to assist 
the States, where appropriate, in their efforts to prevent the 
spread of invasive mussels to Federal projects in the region.
    Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.--
The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above 
the budget request for Water and Related Resources studies, 
projects, and activities. The Committee recommends that 
priority in allocating these funds should be given to complete 
ongoing work, improve water supply reliability, improve water 
deliveries, tribal and nontribal water settlement studies, 
ecosystem restoration, enhance national, regional, or local 
economic development, promote job growth and for critical 
backlog maintenance activities.
    The intent of these funds is for work that either were 
omitted from the budget request or were inadequately budgeted. 
Within 30 days of enactment, Reclamation shall provide the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees a work plan 
delineating how these funds are to be distributed and in which 
phase the work is being accomplished.
    WaterSmart Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse 
Projects.--The Committee believes there is an opportunity to 
enhance the program's effectiveness through the advancement of 
regional-scale projects that include multiple jurisdictions and 
generate environmental as well as water supply benefits. These 
regional projects can require longer planning and construction 
timeframes than other more narrowly focused projects. 
Accordingly, the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to 
consider allocating a portion of the funds within the overall 
title XVI program in future budget requests to be used for 
advancing of regional-scale water reclamation and reuse 
projects by providing planning and construction assistance 
grants that can each be used over a period of up to 5 years.
    Additionally, the Committee is concerned that constrained 
budgets impact the research and development initiatives vital 
to improvements in water recycling and desalination 
technologies development and applications. The Committee 
believes that only through enhanced Federal and non-Federal 
research partnerships can research and development vital to 
much needed improvements in water recycling and desalination 
technologies development and applications be accomplished. The 
Bureau of Reclamation should consider budgeting for extramural 
cost-shared research grants to fund high-priority research and 
development initiatives on water reuse, recycling and 
desalination by not-for-profit organizations who often partner 
with the Bureau of Reclamation.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $53,068,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      39,883,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,883,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,883,000 
for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of 
Public Law 102-575. This fund uses revenues from payments by 
project beneficiaries and donations for habitat restoration, 
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife 
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of 
California. Payments from project beneficiaries include several 
required by the act (Friant Division surcharges, higher charges 
on water transferred to non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) 
and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional 
annual mitigation and restoration payments.
    The Central Valley Project Improvement Act, enacted into 
law in October 1992, established 34 activities to restore and 
enhance fish and wildlife habitats in California's Central 
Valley and Trinity Basins. The act established a Restoration 
Fund for the deposit of contributions from CVP water and power 
users to pay for those activities, along with contributions 
from the State of California, Federal appropriations, and other 
contributors. Unfortunately, a number of sources envisioned to 
contribute to this fund never materialized or funding is no 
longer available from those sources.
    Power users, in particular, are paying a much greater share 
than anyone anticipated. This has resulted in high CVP power 
costs, and unpredictable fee assessments on power agencies. The 
fees imposed on power users are unpredictable, since in low 
water years the water users pay very little and the power users 
make up the difference. The Restoration Fund collection in the 
early years of the act was the equivalent of adding $1 per 
megawatt hour to the cost of CVP power, but this has now 
increased to an average cost of approximately $11 per megawatt 
hour over the last 4 years.
    Since the fund was established in 1992 more than 
$1,400,000,000 has been spent for restoration activities, but 
there has been little accountability on how effectively it has 
been used. There is very little assurance that the goals of the 
Restoration Fund will be met in the near future, such that the 
fees could be reduced under the statute. Therefore, the 
Committee urges the Commissioner to continue to work with power 
users to determine a more predictable payment stream for power 
users and to develop measures to provide more accountability 
and transparency to the restoration process. Further, a report 
covering the previous fiscal year activities should be 
incorporated into the budget justifications submitted with the 
President's budget request starting in fiscal year 2014.

                    CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $39,651,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      36,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      36,000,000

    The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of 
$36,000,000 for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
    This account funds activities that are consistent with the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18 
State and Federal agencies and representatives of California's 
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals 
of the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water 
supply reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-
San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California's 
water distribution system.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011....................................     $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................      60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      60,000,000

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

                    INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     $46,500,000
Committee recommendation................................................

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

                      SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     $12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

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

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    Section 201. The bill includes language regarding Bureau of 
Reclamation Reprogramming.
    Section 202. The bill includes language regarding the San 
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
    Section 203. The bill includes language concerning 
groundwater banking requested by the administration.
    Section 204. The bill includes language concerning water 
transfers requested by the administration.
    Section 205. The bill includes language extending the 
Drought Act and raising the appropriation ceiling.
    Section 206. The bill includes language concerning drought 
planning assistance in the Central Valley Project.
    Section 207. The bill includes language concerning water 
storage studies.
    Section 208. This provision concerns the Friant prepayment 
for the San Joaquin River Settlement currently authorized for 
disbursement starting in 2019. The provision advances 
disbursement of these prepaid funds to 2014 and limits 
expenditure of these authorized mandatory funds to $40,000,000 
per year. The section changes no other provisions of the San 
Joaquin River Settlement.
    Section 209. This section requires the Secretary of the 
Interior to develop and issue a plan identifying strategies to 
increase Central Valley Project water supplies during years 
when water allocations are likely to be low. It is the 
Committee's intent that this plan will be finalized and ready 
for implementation within the 2013 water year.
    The Committee acknowledges that the Secretary of the 
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, implemented 
an aggressive water supply initiative in 2010 that produced 
more than 150,000 acre-feet of water through various 
administrative actions. The intent of the plan required under 
this section is to identify those actions utilized by 
Reclamation in 2010 and any other measures which may provide 
additional water supplies for CVP contractors in dry, 
critically dry and below normal years.
    Section 210. This bill includes language concerning the San 
Gabriel Restoration Fund.

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The Committee recommends $27,127,564,000 for the Department 
of Energy. Within these funds, $11,510,886,000 is for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. The 
Committee's highest priority is accelerating breakthroughs in 
clean energy technologies to reduce the Nation's dependence on 
foreign oil and developing carbon-free sources of energy that 
will change the way the United States produces and consumes 
energy. Moreover, the Committee recommends an increase of 
$510,886,000 above fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for NNSA to 
address critical national security missions. The increase would 
allow NNSA to stay on track to meet its goal of securing all 
vulnerable nuclear materials in 4 years to protect the United 
States against nuclear terrorism, continue modernizing the 
nuclear weapons complex consistent with the Nuclear Posture 
Review and New START Treaty, and develop a new reactor core for 
the OHIO-class submarine.

                          Exascale Initiative

    The Committee continues to support the Department's 
initiative to develop exascale computing--1,000 times more 
powerful than today's most powerful computer. The Committee 
recommends $137,500,000 to support this initiative, which 
includes $68,500,000 for the Office of Science and $69,000,000 
for the NNSA. The Committee understands that with today's 
technology, an exascale computer would consume more than 200 
megawatts of power at a cost of $200,000,000-$300,000,000 per 
year, would have an extremely high failure rate, and be 
difficult to program and use. For this reason, the committee 
supports a focused research, development, and engineering 
effort to address technical challenges and deploy an exascale 
system by 2022 that uses no more than 20 megawatts of power.

                    Streamlining Security Contracts

    The Committee is concerned that the Department has 
duplicative overhead costs in providing protection services for 
laboratories and sensitive sites around the country. The 
Committee is concerned that these contracts are not uniformly 
managed, organized, or staffed, which creates concerns about 
the safety of the national laboratories as well as fiscal 
responsibility with taxpayer dollars. In November 2011, the 
Department's Inspector General recommended that the Department 
pursue either a master contract, consolidation by region, or 
Federalizing the protective force to help reduce costs. The 
Committee directs that no later than 60 days after enactment of 
this act the Department provide the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees a plan to reduce the overhead costs 
of protective forces at sensitive sites and laboratories which 
includes one of the options recommended by the Inspector 
General, or another option that may have equal or greater 
contracting cost reductions.

                        Contractor Support Costs

    The Committee notes the Government Accountability Office 
[GAO] has identified Department of Energy contractor support 
costs as an area where opportunities may exist to reduce costs. 
Approximately 90 percent of the Department's budget is spent on 
contractors to carry out its missions and operate its sites 
nationwide. These management and operating contractors also 
provide sites' support functions. According to GAO, the cost of 
support functions at the NNSA and Office of Science sites 
increased by 10 percent between fiscal year 2007 and 2009. The 
Department is directed to take actions to manage cost growth in 
support functions and related costs, and describe ongoing and 
future efforts to meet GAO recommendations in this area and 
report to the Committee within 30 days of enactment of this 
act.

                       Small Business Contracting

    The Committee directs the Department to make no changes to 
its current small-business contracting processes related to the 
Department's national laboratories. Under DOE's management and 
operations contracts with the national laboratories, about 10 
percent to 20 percent of total laboratory budgets are currently 
subcontracted to small business and managed locally by each 
laboratory. The Committee understands that the Department is 
considering converting these laboratory-managed subcontracts to 
primary contracts let and managed by the Department. The 
Committee is concerned that such a change will not result in 
any increase in funding available to small businesses. In fact, 
the Committee is concerned that the Department's proposed plan 
will increase contracting bureaucracy and result in a loss of 
efficiencies derived from the localized management and 
operation of the national laboratories. The Committee directs 
the Department to consult Congress, including the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, before making any changes 
to small-business contracting procedures.

                             New Positions

    The Committee is concerned about the Department's creation 
of new senior-level positions without advance notification. 
Such positions necessitate budgetary requirements, and as such 
the Committee expects in the future to be notified of the 
Department's plans (including those of the NNSA) to create new 
senior level position, along with the budget needed to sustain 
such positions.

                          Budget Justification

    The Committee recognizes the progress the Department has 
made on updating the format of the budget justification 
submission. Although the format is more condensed, parts of the 
justification--particularly the Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy [EERE] section--are nearly devoid of usable information 
and make meaningful analysis of the budget impossible. For 
example, the justification does not list how much funding was 
proposed for either of the two hubs in EERE. The Committee 
appreciates the Department's follow-up in providing needed 
information. While the Committee supports displaying how 
funding is distributed among technology readiness levels, the 
narrative should pertain to a comparable structure to 
previously enacted acts to enable comparison of activities, and 
funding information should be displayed in comparable account 
structures showing at least the program, project or activity 
level. For the fiscal year 2014 budget justification, the 
Committee directs the Department to implement these conforming 
changes, and provide significantly more detail to the Committee 
on Appropriations to enable adequate analysis of the budget 
request. Any program, project or activity should be readily 
identifiable and easy to locate in the budget justification.

                        Reprogramming Guidelines

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

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2012...................................\1\$1,825,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   2,337,000,000
Committee recommendation................................\2\1,985,735,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $9,909,000 under Public Law 112-331.
\2\Does not include proposed rescission of $69,667,000.

    The Committee recommendation is $1,985,735,000 for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    Quadrennial Technology Review.--Based on the results of the 
Department's Quadrennial Technology Review, and the Nation's 
many urgent energy challenges, the Committee strongly 
recommends that the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy consider applying more funding toward near-term 
commercialization efforts in partnership with the private 
sector.
    Budgeting for Facilities.--The Committee directs the 
Department to provide support for the base operating costs of 
the Energy Systems Integration Facility [ESIF], a new 
technology user facility, which will begin operations in fiscal 
year 2013 and transfer the necessary funds from the technology 
programs into the Facilities and Infrastructure account. 
Starting in fiscal year 2014, the Committee expects the 
Department to request a ``Facility Management'' subprogram 
budget within Facilities and Infrastructure to support ESIF 
operations.
    Hydrogen Technology.--The Committee continues to support 
fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle, 
motive and portable power applications. The Committee 
recommends $104,000,000 for the Fuel Cell Technologies program, 
$24,000,000 above the request and consistent with last year's 
appropriated funding. Within this total funding, $14,000,000 is 
for Technology Validation focused on passenger vehicle and 
hydrogen infrastructure applications where vehicles will be 
deployed, $34,000,000 is for hydrogen fuels R&D, and 
$15,000,000 is for Market Transformation for cost-shared 
advanced demonstration and deployment of early market 
stationary power and motive applications including material 
handling equipment, ground support equipment, refrigerated 
trucks, auxiliary power units and the associated hydrogen 
infrastructure.
    Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--The Committee 
recommends $200,000,000 for biomass and biorefinery systems 
R&D. Within the available funds, the Department is encouraged 
to direct a total of $30,000,000 for algae biofuels. The 
Committee is concerned the Department is interpreting biomass 
too narrowly and failing to consider promising noncellulosic 
forms of biomass energy technology projects. For purposes of 
allocating resources, the Department is directed to include 
biosolids derived from the municipal wastewater treatment 
process and other similar renewables within the definition of 
noncellulosic. In funding biomass and biofuels refinery 
systems, the Department is encouraged to provide funding to 
projects that utilize regionally available and appropriate wood 
and agricultural biomass feedstock for thermal heating 
applications. The Committee recognizes that quality and 
reliability of supplies will be key in acceptance of advanced 
drop-in biofuels into the supply chain once they are 
demonstrated at a convincing scale. To that end, the Committee 
is supportive of the collaboration between the Navy, Department 
of Agriculture and DOE to develop innovative technologies for 
jet and diesel fuels for military uses. With the Department of 
Defense as an early adopter of these alternative fuels, the 
wider marketplace will be more likely to follow.
    Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $293,000,000 for 
solar energy. The Committee supports the budget increase in the 
Market Barriers program to $25,000,000 and directs the 
Department to prioritize the expansion of the Rooftop Solar 
Challenge program, focused specifically on streamlining 
permitting and inspection processes. Work in fiscal year 2013 
will focus on applying best practices developed in fiscal year 
2012 more broadly throughout the country. Further, the 
Department of Energy shall continue to fund projects to 
demonstrate innovative solar energy technologies including in 
coordination with its regional testing centers to validate 
these new technologies by developing the standards and 
guidelines to certify the performance and operation of utility 
scale solar energy projects.
    Wind Energy.--The recommendation is $95,000,000 for wind 
energy. The Committee directs $37,200,000 for offshore wind 
technologies, including freshwater, deepwater, shallow water, 
and transitional depth installations. The Committee understands 
that the Department is making resources available on a 
competitive basis for offshore wind advanced technology 
demonstration projects and expects that such funds continue to 
be awarded for new and innovative technologies. The Committee 
encourages the Department to support collaborative industry/
university research involving modeling and visualization aimed 
at extending the life of wind turbine blades.
    Geothermal Technology.--The recommendation for geothermal 
technology is $65,000,000. The funds made available by this 
section shall be disbursed to the full spectrum of geothermal 
technologies as authorized by the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) and the Department of 
Energy shall continue its support of comprehensive programs 
that support academic and professional development initiatives. 
The Committee continues to have concerns about the level of 
funding devoted to low-temperature geothermal research and 
development and directs the Department to provide funding to 
this geothermal area of research and development. The U.S. 
Geological Survey has identified more than 120,000 MW of 
untapped potential at these temperatures.
    Water Power Energy R&D.--The Committee recommends 
$59,000,000 for water power. The budget request of $20,000,000 
allocated $15,000,000, or 75 percent, of the funding to marine 
and hydrokinetic technology and $5,000,000, or 25 percent, of 
the funding to conventional hydropower. The Committee believes 
the budget request is inadequate for both categories of 
technology, but accepts the proposed ratio of funding. Hence, 
the Committee recommends $44,000,000 for marine and 
hydrokinetic technology research, development and deployment 
and $15,000,000 for conventional hydropower.
    Within available funds, the Committee directs the 
Department to provide up to $5,000,000 for the construction of 
necessary testing infrastructure for marine and hydrokinetic 
systems. The Committee encourages the Department to coordinate 
with the Department of Defense and designated National Marine 
Renewable Energy Centers for ocean renewable energy 
demonstration activities. Additionally, the Committee directs 
the Department to provide not less than $20,000,000 for 
competitive demonstrations of marine and hydrokinetic 
technologies. Not later than October 31, 2012, the Department 
shall provide a briefing to the Committee on the report 
required in fiscal year 2010 outlining the Department's 
research and development priorities and goals for this program 
during fiscal years 2011 through 2015 along with efforts to 
further validate the economic and technical viability of a 
variety of marine and hydrokinetic technologies.
    Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$330,000,000 for vehicle technologies. Within the available 
funds, the Committee provides full funding for existing 
contracts in the Super Truck program. The Committee is 
concerned that the budget's proposed funding for Innovative and 
Emerging Technologies related to aerodynamic drag reduction for 
large trucks are insufficient to achieve the goal to improve 
the fuel economy of heavy duty, class eight vehicles by fifty 
percent. Within available funds, an increase of $10,000,000 is 
provided to the Vehicle Systems, Simulations, and Testing sub-
activity. Further, within available funds, $4,000,000 is 
provided for lightweight materials modeling and design for 
vehicle optimization and $10,000,000 is provided to continue 
funding of section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence and 
Security Act.
    Building Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$220,000,000 for building technologies. The Committee funds the 
Building Innovation Hub at $24,238,000 as requested in the 
budget. The Committee is concerned about misinformation and 
confusion among consumers and public officials that the energy 
efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs, effective 
January 1, 2011, will ban incandescent bulbs. The Committee 
notes that the standards require that incandescent bulbs be 
more efficient, do not ban any type of product, and have the 
support of the United States lighting industry. To increase 
consumer awareness, the Committee directs the Secretary, in 
coordination with manufacturers, retailers, consumer groups, 
and energy efficiency advocacy organizations, to continue its 
education campaign on the new light bulb standards, the new 
bulb labels, and on the availability and benefits of high-
efficiency lighting products. The Department is encouraged to 
provide no less than $10,000,000 to support research, 
development, and strategic deployment of geothermal heat pump 
technology.
    The Committee recognizes that the Government Accountability 
Office [GAO] recently reported that Federal agencies have 
limited collaboration across initiatives to promote non-Federal 
green buildings. Additionally, GAO found that only about one-
third of these initiatives have goals and performance measures, 
making overall results and their related investments impossible 
to quantify. The Committee directs the Department to 
collaborate with other agencies identified in the GAO report to 
ensure that funding provided in this Act is not overlapping or 
duplicative of activities carried out by those agencies, and 
provide clear, measurable metrics to assess the results of this 
program.
    Advanced Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends 
$168,635,000. The recommendation includes funding for the 
Critical Materials hub at the request level. The Department is 
encouraged to utilize $500,000 to continue the mechanical 
insulation campaign that was initiated in fiscal year 2010 and 
is ongoing with industry cost-sharing and collaborating on 
content.
    Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee 
recommends $30,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management 
Program.
    Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends 
$26,400,000 for facilities and infrastructure consistent with 
the budget request.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $164,700,000 
for program direction.
    Strategic Programs.--The Committee recommends $25,000,000 
for strategic programs. The strategic priorities and impact 
analysis subprogram is funded at $8,000,000.
    Weatherization Assistance Program.--The Committee provides 
$145,000,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee notes that while this level is an 
increase over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2012, it 
represents a substantial reduction in total available funding 
given that less will be available for carryover in fiscal year 
2013. The Committee notes the important role that 
weatherization plays in permanently reducing home energy costs 
for low-income families, lessening our dependence on foreign 
oil, and training a skilled workforce. The Committee is 
concerned about the potential impact a lower funding level may 
have on low-income households served by the program.
    Intergovernmental Activities.--The Committee provides 
$50,000,000 for State Energy Programs and $10,000,000 for 
Tribal Energy Activities.
    Rescission of Prior-Year Balances.--The Committee rescinds 
$69,667,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the budget 
request.

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $139,500,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     143,015,000
Committee recommendation................................     143,015,000

    The Committee recommends $143,015,000 for Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability. The funding is provided 
consistent with the budget request and includes $20,000,000 for 
the proposed Electricity Systems Hub. Within the funding 
available for storage, the Department is encouraged to include 
research and development of nano-structured materials, such as 
nano-structured carbon electrodes. Further, the Department is 
encouraged to use available funding to issue grants for 
regional transmission planning to support or implement 
accelerated deployment of new renewable electricity generation 
in the Western and Eastern interconnections. The Department, in 
working with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, shall 
continue to provide technical assistance to states seeking to 
form interstate compacts for the purposes of improving regional 
transmission capacity, as provided for in section 1221 of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58).

                             Nuclear Energy

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $768,663,000
Budget Estimate, 2013...................................     770,445,000
Committee recommendation................................     785,445,000

    The Committee recommends $785,445,000 for Nuclear Energy, 
including $93,000,000 for safeguards and security at Idaho 
National Laboratory. In addition, the Committee recommends use 
of prior year balances in the amount of $17,700,000 for a total 
budget of $803,145,000. The Committee notes that the Blue 
Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future submitted its 
final recommendations to the Secretary of Energy in January 
2012. The Committee strongly supports these recommendations, 
and provides funding in this account for the Department to 
implement many of them in the short-term. Most notably, the 
Committee provides both statutory authority and funding for the 
Department to begin the processes to site, construct, and 
operate a consolidated storage facility for spent nuclear fuel 
and high-level radioactive waste. Additionally, the Committee 
directs the Department to ensure that the public continues to 
have access to the Blue Ribbon Commission's Web site and all 
records and documents therein.
    The Department of Energy's failure to begin disposing of 
waste on January 31, 1998 has created a liability, based on the 
Standard Contracts signed by the Department and each utility 
operating a nuclear reactor. This liability is expected to 
exceed $20,000,000,000 by 2020, and accruing an additional 
$500,000,000 for each year after 2020 that the Department has 
not accepted spent nuclear fuel. Although funding for these 
liabilities does not come from the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill, but is rather paid from the Judgment Fund 
in the Department of the Treasury, it is, in the end, the 
taxpayers that are severely penalized for the Federal 
Government's inaction. This is an unacceptable outcome, and now 
that the Blue Ribbon Commission has provided recommendations, 
the Committee would be irresponsible in failing to act on them 
in this legislation.

                Nuclear Energy Research and Development

    Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--The Committee 
provides $65,318,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies, 
the same as the budget request. Within available funds, the 
Committee supports multiscale physics-based modeling and 
simulation activities for engineering technology development of 
safety and waste depositions of nuclear materials.
    Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support.--The 
Committee provides $65,000,000 for Small Modular Reactor 
Licensing Technical Support, the same as the budget request. 
This is the second year of funding for a 5-year program capped 
at $452,000,000. The fiscal year 2012 bill appropriated 
$67,000,000. The Committee notes that the budget request level 
for fiscal year 2013 will require the funding in fiscal years 
2014-2016 to be just over $106,500,000 in order to fully fund 
the program in 5 fiscal years. The Committee urges the 
Department to set aggressive milestones for this program and 
the program's industry partners, and develop a strategy to 
track progress, meet milestones, and hold industry to its 
commitments.
    Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and 
Demonstration.--The Committee provides $73,674,000 for Reactor 
Concepts Research, Development, and Deployment, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee notes theoretical potential for 
new reactor concepts in general, and in particular very high 
temperature nuclear reactors [VHTR], but see little mid-term 
likelihood of such reactors being constructed in the United 
States. The current and projected low price of natural gas will 
continue to complicate the competitiveness of VHTRs in 
providing process heat for industrial applications. It is 
increasingly apparent that industry will not shoulder the cost 
or risk of constructing an advanced reactor alone and the 
current Federal budget climate makes it also unlikely that the 
Federal government will spend billions of dollars on such an 
undertaking. The goals and time-lines of the Reactor Concepts 
sub-program remain unclear.
    For the reasons above and given this year's budget 
constraints, the Committee does not support continuing the Next 
Generation Nuclear Plant demonstration project at this time, 
and accordingly provides no funding for those activities. 
Additionally, the Committee does not provide funding for 
development of a public-private partnership or for studying a 
business case for the demonstration project. Any funding the 
Department provides for NGNP is limited to continuing 
qualification of TRISO fuel and ongoing research and 
development activities that started in prior fiscal years. The 
Committee provides the budget request for Light Water 
Sustainability. Under Advanced Reactor Concepts, the Committee 
is uncertain of the budget requests focus on two concepts and 
directs the Department to consider other reactor technologies 
as well in fiscal year 2013. The Committee supports the 
research and development of advanced reactor concepts that have 
the potential to be safer and more cost effective than current 
designs, while also reducing waste production and the risk of 
nuclear proliferation. The Committee encourages the Department 
to award a portion of these funds competitively in order to 
assure that the most promising designs of private industry, the 
DOE laboratories and universities are advanced.
    Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee 
recommends $193,138,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and 
Development, including $40,378,000 for the Advanced Fuels 
program, the same as the budget request. The Committee is 
encouraged by the Department's expedient implementation of the 
accident tolerant fuels development program, the goal of which 
is the development of meltdown-resistant nuclear fuels leading 
to reactor testing and utilization in 10 years. The Committee 
urges the Department to establish a long-range, integrated 
approach to this difficult and very important objective, 
including the establishment of relevant testing facilities and 
reliable milestones within its laboratories, and to place 
special technical emphasis and funding priority on highly 
innovative activities, such as its ceramic coated particle fuel 
effort, that could significantly enhance the safety of present 
and future generations of Light Water Reactors.
    Section 312 in the bill establishes a pilot program under 
which the Department may site, construct, and operate at least 
one consolidated storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level radioactive waste subject to future authorization 
and appropriation. The Committee provides a $2,000,000 increase 
in program direction from within available funds to implement 
this authority. The Committee directs the Department to use 
$17,700,000 in unobligated, prior year funds appropriated from 
the Nuclear Waste Fund. The Committee directs the Department to 
solicit proposals for consolidated storage facilities within 
120 days of enactment of this act. In evaluating proposals, the 
Department should give priority to novel concepts, including 
consolidated storage facilities proposed to be co-located with 
potential permanent repositories, given that current volumes of 
spent nuclear fuel now exceed the statutory limits established 
in section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for the first 
repository. The Committee expects that the Department will 
consider only proposals it receives for the nuclear waste pilot 
program, and encourages consideration of proposals developed in 
a cooperative manner with an applying entity and States, local 
jurisdictions, or affected Indian tribes. The Department should 
at every step consider the views of the States, local 
jurisdictions and affected Indian tribes, and should not expend 
resources to consider sites that are unlikely to achieve 
support of the host State, local jurisdictions, and affected 
Indian tribes. The Committee directs the Department to exercise 
this authority consistent with the recommendations in the Blue 
Ribbon Commission's final report to the Secretary of Energy. 
The Committee notes that the Blue Ribbon Commission found that 
one or more consolidated storage facilities is required 
regardless of the ultimate location of a permanent repository. 
The Department currently lacks authority to conduct these 
activities.
    International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.--The Committee 
provides $3,000,000 for International Nuclear Energy 
Cooperation, the same as the budget request.

                   Radiological Facilities Management

    Radiological Facilities Management.--The Committee provides 
$66,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management. Within 
available funds, the Committee provides $15,000,000 for hot 
cells at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In future budget 
requests, the Committee directs the Department to request 
sufficient funding for radiological infrastructure to maintain 
capabilities and regulatory compliance.

                      Idaho Facilities Management

    Idaho Facilities Management.--The Committee provides 
$152,000,000 for Idaho Facilities Management, the same as the 
budget request. Funding provided will support moving forward 
with both the Advanced Post Irradiation Examination Facility 
and the restart of the Transient Reactor Experiment and Test 
Facility.
    Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security.--The Committee 
provides $93,000,000 for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and 
Security, the same as the budget request. The Committee 
supports transferring this sub-account from Other Defense 
Activities to Nuclear Energy.
    Program Direction.--The Committee provides $92,015,000 for 
program direction.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development


                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2012.................................... \1\$534,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     420,575,000
Committee recommendation................................     460,575,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $187,000,000 under Public Law 112-331.

    The Committee recommends $460,575,000 for Fossil Energy 
Research and Development. This is $40,000,000 more than the 
budget request.
    CCS and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends 
$301,622,000 for CCS and Power Systems. Within the available 
funding, Advanced Energy Systems is funded at $80,946,000. Of 
this funding, $25,000,000 is to continue the Department's 
research, development, and demonstration of solid oxide fuel 
cell systems, which have the potential to 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. Further, within Gasification Systems, a subprogram of 
Advanced Energy Systems, the recommendation includes 
$8,000,000, the same as provided in fiscal year 2012, to 
continue activities improving advanced air separation 
technologies.
    The United States is experiencing a significant increase in 
natural gas production and use in the United States. The 
Committee is aware that some of the research and development 
work being conducted within the CCS and Power Systems programs 
for coal are also potentially applicable to natural gas. The 
solid oxide fuel cell systems are an example of research and 
development that is applicable to both coal and natural gas 
power generation. The Department is directed to use funds from 
this program for both coal and natural gas research and 
development as it determines to be merited.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $120,000,000 
for program direction, which will remain available until 
September 30, 2014.
    Other Programs.--The Committee recommends $13,294,000 for 
Plant and Capital Equipment; $5,897,000 for Fossil Energy 
Environmental Restoration; and $700,000 for Special Recruitment 
Programs. Within available funds, the Committee directs the 
Department to continue the Risk Based Data Management System.
    The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for natural gas 
technologies. Of this amount, $12,000,000 is for interagency 
research and development initiatives and $10,000,000 is for 
ongoing methane hydrates research and development.

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $14,909,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      14,909,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,909,000

    The Committee recommends $14,909,000 for Naval Petroleum 
and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request.

                      Elk Hills School Lands Fund

Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     $15,579,815
Committee recommendation................................      15,579,815

    The Committee recommends $15,579,815 for the Elk Hills 
School Lands Fund, the same as the budget request. This is the 
final payment of the settlement agreement.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $192,704,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     195,609,000
Committee recommendation................................     195,609,000

    The Committee recommends $195,609,000 for the operation of 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
    The Committee notes that the Department has continued to 
ignore the statutory directive in Public Law 111-8 to submit a 
report to Congress regarding the effects of expanding the 
Reserve on the domestic petroleum market by April 27, 2009. The 
Department has not yet submitted the report, and continues to 
fail to meet other congressionally mandated deadlines without 
explanation or cause. Although now nearly 3\1/2\ years delayed, 
the information requested in the report continues to be 
pertinent to policy decisions, and the Secretary is directed to 
submit the report as expeditiously as possible to the 
Committee.

                      Strategic Petroleum Account

Appropriations, 2012....................................   -$500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................    -291,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Committee does not recommend the proposed rescission of 
$291,000,000 in balances from the Strategic Petroleum Account.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve


                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2012....................................  \1\$10,119,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   \2\10,119,000
Committee recommendation................................   \2\10,119,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $100,000,000 under Public Law 112-331.
\2\Does not include proposed rescission of $6,000,000.

    The Committee recommends $10,119,000 for the Northeast Home 
Heating Oil Reserve as requested. The budget request proposes, 
and the Committee supports, the rescission of $6,000,000.

                   Energy Information Administration

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $105,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     116,365,000
Committee recommendation................................     116,365,000

    The Committee recommends $116,365,000 for the Energy 
Information Administration.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $235,721,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     198,506,000
Committee recommendation................................     228,506,000

    The Committee's recommendation for Non-Defense 
Environmental Cleanup is $228,506,000.
    Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2013, the 
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between 
operating expense funded projects within the controls listed 
below using guidance contained in the Department's budget 
execution manual (DOE M 135.1-1A, chapter IV). All capital 
construction line item projects remain separate controls from 
the operating projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the 
House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all 
reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the 
Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of 
congressional response. The Committee recommends the following 
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2013:
  --Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and 
        Decommissioning;
  --Gaseous Diffusion Plants;
  --Small Sites; and
  --West Valley Demonstration Project.
    Internal Reprogramming Authority.--Headquarters 
Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one 
time, between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety 
risks, gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a 
program or project is not increased or decreased by more than 
$2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year.
    The reprogramming authority--either formal or internal--may 
not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding 
levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased 
by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on 
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 
30 days after the use of the internal reprogramming authority.
    Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and 
Decommissioning.--The Committee recommends $2,704,000.
    Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--The Committee recommends 
$90,109,000.
    Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $87,831,000. In 
response to a lack of progress on addressing existing 
contamination and seismic deficiencies within buildings that 
are located in heavily used areas at some Department national 
laboratories, the Department is directed to use additional 
funding to improve health and safety by cleaning up existing 
contamination and improving seismic standards of buildings 
within Department laboratory grounds.
    The Committee also encourages the Department to explore 
remediation efforts at small sites which can demonstrate new 
models for cleanup performed by private sector and third party 
organizations, such as laboratories and universities, which 
could save substantial resources compared to the traditional 
agency-led cleanup model and result in faster cleanup without 
compromising public safety. The Committee urges the Department 
to budget for such cleanup models.
    West Valley Demonstration Project.--The Committee 
recommends $47,862,000.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $472,930,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     442,493,000
Committee recommendation................................     442,493,000

    The Committee recommends $442,493,000 for Uranium 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning activities, the 
same as the budget request.

                                Science

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $4,889,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   4,992,052,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,909,000,000

    The Committee recommends $4,909,000,000, a decrease of 
$83,052,000 below the budget request, for the Office of 
Science. The Committee believes this level of funding will 
maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology during a 
time of significant funding constraints. Investments in basic 
research will lead to new and improved energy technologies and 
the construction and operation of new, large-scale scientific 
facilities will be vitally important for many areas of science 
as well as private industry, such as pharmaceutical and 
aerospace companies. Funding for advanced computing will also 
position the United States to maintain international leadership 
in scientific computing and simulation over the next decade.
    Office of Science Priorities.--The Committee continues to 
support the three highest priorities for the Office of Science: 
(1) the discovery and design of new materials for the 
generation, storage, and use of energy; (2) better 
understanding of microorganisms and plants for improved 
biofuels production; and (3) the development and deployment of 
more powerful computing capabilities to take advantage of 
modeling and simulation to advance energy technologies and 
maintain U.S. economic competitiveness.
    Maintaining Program Balance for Lower-Priority 
Activities.--The Committee commends the Office of Science for 
identifying clear priorities and directing limited funding 
toward those priorities. However, the Committee is concerned by 
the Office of Science's lack of strategic guidance and 
prioritization among lower priority research activities, such 
as fusion energy science, nuclear physics, and high-energy 
physics. The Committee is concerned that the scope of work, 
which includes research, operations of existing facilities, and 
new construction, has not changed while the budget for these 
programs is decreasing. The Committee believes the Office of 
Science must evaluate the highest-priority needs for these 
programs in a fiscally constrained environment and make 
difficult decisions, including delaying construction projects 
and terminating research activities, to advance these fields of 
science in areas where the United States can lead and be 
competitive with other countries.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommends $1,712,091,000, a decrease of 
$87,501,000 below the budget request, for Basic Energy 
Sciences. Of these funds, $110,703,000 is provided for 
construction activities as requested, which includes 
$47,203,000 for the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory and $63,500,000 for the Linac 
Coherent Light Source-II at SLAC. Of the remaining funds for 
Basic Energy Sciences, $692,666,000 is for research activities 
in materials science and engineering and chemical sciences, 
geosciences, and biosciences, and $908,725,000, which is 
$49,698,000 above fiscal year 2012 enacted levels, is to 
increase operating times to near optimum levels of world-class 
scientific user facilities. The Committee encourages DOE to 
continue research and development activities that will lead to 
even more powerful light source facilities, which are a key 
part of the nation's innovation ecosystem and critical to 
America's international economic competitiveness. The Committee 
also encourages DOE to explore the suitability of using 
existing U.S. synchotron radiation facilities, including non-
DOE user facilities, at universities to serve as training 
grounds for beamline designers, machine physicists, and other 
users.
    Within the research funds provided, the Committee 
recommends up to $100,000,000 to support the 46 Energy Frontier 
Research Centers, $24,237,000 for the Fuels from Sunlight Hub, 
and $24,237,000 for the Batteries and Energy Storage Hub. Up to 
$10,000,000 shall be available for materials and chemistry by 
design to improve predictive modeling and accelerate material 
discovery for energy applications. The Committee encourages the 
continuation of catalysis research and encourages partnerships 
with universities to support research and development of novel 
device materials for alternative energy applications.
    The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
[EPSCoR] program was created by Congress over concerns about 
the uneven distribution of Federal research and development 
grants. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for EPSCoR and 
encourages DOE to sponsor a workshop to examine the geographic 
distribution of its budget, how best to utilize states at the 
forefront of energy production, and ensure that they are 
included in important policy and research initiatives. The 
Committee also encourages DOE to continue funding to support 
research and development needs of graduate and post-graduate 
science programs at Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities.
    Within the funds provided for scientific user facilities, 
the Committee recommends $25,000,000 to support early 
operations of the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory and $32,000,000 for Major Items 
of Equipment, which includes $20,000,000 to continue the 
upgrade to the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National 
Laboratory and $12,000,000 for activities that add beamlines to 
the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at Brookhaven National 
Laboratory.
    The President's budget request notes the cancellation of 
the power upgrades project for the Spallation Neutron Source's 
second target station. Given the large number of construction 
projects currently underway in the Office of Science, the 
Committee encourages the Office of Science to consider the 
second target station as a long term planning item and include 
it in the Office of Science's phased construction schedule for 
major construction projects in the outyears.
    No funding is provided for new collaborative efforts with 
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that would 
expand the scope of work of Energy Frontier Research Centers 
and divert funding from operations of facilities. No funding is 
provided to expand mesoscale research efforts. While the 
Committee understands that there may be merit in pursuing 
mesoscale science to advance future energy technologies, DOE 
has not provided sufficient justification for a significant new 
investment. The Committee directs the Office of Science to work 
with the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee to develop a 
plan that can be presented to Congress for mesoscale science 
that identifies the scientific needs for pursuing this 
research, what facilities are available to effectively pursue 
this research, and possible measureable outcomes.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    The Committee recommends $625,347,000 as requested for 
Biological and Environmental Research. Within these funds, the 
Committee recommends $309,773,000 for biological systems 
science and $315,574,000 for climate and environmental 
sciences.
    Within the funds provided for biological systems science, 
the Committee recommends $75,000,000 as requested for the 
Bioenergy Research Centers. The Committee supports the 
continuation of the 3 research centers and is encouraged by 
some of the early successes related to developing next-
generation bioenergy crops, improving biomass deconstruction 
with enzymes and microbes, and advancing biofuels synthesis. 
The Committee is also encouraged that in the last 5 years the 
Bioenergy Research Centers have released 914 publications and 
237 invention disclosures that resulted in 115 patent 
applications and 51 patent application licenses. The Committee 
encourages the Office of Science to continue investing in 
synthetic biology tools and biodesign technologies to 
accelerate the cost-effective production of next generation 
biofuels that could serve as secure, national energy resources.
    The Committee commends the Department of Energy's National 
Laboratories and the National Institutes of Health for their 
collaboration on research and development projects. These 
collaborations have resulted in advances in bioinformatics and 
breakthroughs in atomic resolution structural biology. The 
Committee strongly encourages the Department of Energy to 
continue planning, discussions, and funding activities with the 
National Institutes of Health to further research and 
development efforts. The Committee understands that 
Radiological Sciences is transitioning from its historical 
focus on nuclear medicine research and applications for health 
to research focused on metabolic imaging of plants and microbes 
relevant to biofuels production. However, the Committee is 
concerned that the Office of Science has not coordinated 
research activities with other Federal agencies to continue 
nuclear medicine research with human application. Within these 
funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 to continue nuclear 
medicine research with human application unless the Office of 
Science can demonstrate this research is being continued more 
effectively and efficiently by another Federal agency.
    Within the funds provided for climate and environmental 
sciences, the Committee recommends $47,700,000 as requested for 
the operation of the Environmental Molecular Sciences 
Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The 
Committee also recommends $11,700,000 as requested for the Next 
Generation Ecosystem Experiment in the Tropics, which will be 
the first and only U.S. experiment in the tropics to help 
predict climate change, reduce uncertainty, and improve 
predictive modeling.

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Committee recommends $455,593,000 as requested for 
Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Within these funds, the 
Committee recommends $68,500,000 as requested for the exascale 
initiative to spur U.S. innovation and increase the country's 
ability to address critical national challenges.
    The Committee also recommends $94,000,000 for the Oak Ridge 
Leadership Computing Facility to move forward with upgrades to 
its Cray XT5 with a peak capability of more than 20 petaflops, 
$67,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility to 
move forward with upgrades to its IBM Blue Gene/P systems with 
a peak capability of 10 petaflops, $68,105,000 for the National 
Energy Research Scientific Computing Center facility at 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to support operations and 
infrastructure expenses for the new Computational Research and 
Theory Building, and $35,000,000 to help support extended 
deployment of a 100 gigabit-per-second network to the national 
laboratories. Having high end open science computing will not 
only help the United States maintain leadership in computing 
and develop breakthroughs that will improve the everyday lives 
of our citizens through new technologies available to them, but 
will also support breakthroughs in the other research areas in 
the Office of Science. Research programs such as fusion energy 
science, biofuels, and materials by design all stand to benefit 
from investments in open science computer modeling and 
simulation.
    The Committee recommends that up to $8,000,000 shall be 
available to pursue data-intensive science, but the Committee 
directs the Office of Science to develop a plan that explains 
the extent of the problem, how research efforts will address 
data analysis problems, and the funding needed to overcome 
these data challenges.
    The Committee encourages the Office of Science to continue 
working with small- and medium-sized manufacturers and 
businesses to educate them about the benefits of using high 
performance computing for modeling and simulations to solve 
tough manufacturing and engineering challenges and reduce 
development costs. The Committee also encourages the Office of 
Science to simplify software and codes so a broader set of 
businesses can take advantage of these powerful tools.

                          HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS

    The Committee recommends $781,521,000, an increase of 
$5,000,000, for High-Energy Physics. Within these funds, the 
Committee recommends $25,000,000 as requested for the Muon to 
Electron Conversion Experiment, which includes $20,000,000 for 
construction and $5,000,000 for other project costs. The 
Committee also recommends $26,000,000 for the Long Baseline 
Neutrino Experiment, which includes $10,000,000 for research 
and development and $16,000,000 for project engineering and 
design. The Committee is concerned about proposed cost 
estimates for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment and 
encourages the Office of Science to consider all alternatives 
to reduce the cost of the experiment while still meeting the 
highest priority scientific goals. The Committee recommends 
that $730,521,000 of the remaining funds be used for research 
in the energy, intensity, and cosmic frontiers. Within these 
funds, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to support minimal, 
sustaining operations at the Homestake Mine in South Dakota.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The Committee recommends $539,938,000, an increase of 
$13,000,000 above the budget request, for Nuclear Physics. The 
Committee is concerned about the lack of strategic direction 
for nuclear physics and the inability of the program to adapt 
to a changing budget environment. The Committee believes that 
the budget request puts at risk all major research and facility 
operations activities without significantly advancing nuclear 
physics goals. For example, the budget request reduces the 
operating times of two major facilities--a 50 percent reduction 
in operating time for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory and a 15 percent reduction at 
the Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System at Argonne National 
Laboratory. At the same time, the budget request does not 
provide sufficient funds to advance the new Facility for Rare 
Isotope Beams at Michigan State University, and the current 
construction project to upgrade the Continuous Electron Beam 
Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National 
Laboratory is at risk of falling behind schedule. The Committee 
directs the Office of Science to charge the Nuclear Physics 
Advisory Committee to submit a report by December 1, 2012 to 
the Office of Science and the Committee that proposes research 
and development activities for nuclear physics under a flat 
budget scenario over the next 5 fiscal years. The report should 
specifically identify priorities for facility construction and 
facility decommissioning to meet those priorities.
    To address some of these concerns, the Committee recommends 
$40,572,000 in construction funds for the Continuous Electron 
Beam Accelerator Facility, which the Nuclear Physics Advisory 
Committee concluded was the highest priority for the Nation's 
nuclear physics program. The Committee also recommends 
$30,000,000 for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, which 
includes funding to complete design and engineering work and, 
if the Office of Science approves a performance baseline, site 
preparation activities. The Committee also recommends 
$163,600,000 for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider to 
maintain 20 weeks of operations.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommends $398,324,000 as requested for 
Fusion Energy Sciences. Within these funds, the Committee 
recommends $150,000,000 as requested for the U.S. contribution 
to ITER. Similar to the Nuclear Physics program, the Committee 
is concerned by the lack of strategic direction for the fusion 
energy program. The Committee understands that the budget 
request provides a $45,000,000 increase to the U.S. ITER 
contribution but even with the increase, the U.S. contribution 
is still $50,000,000 short of the project plan. The Committee 
also understands that the increase to the U.S. contribution 
came at the expense of the domestic fusion program. The 
Committee is concerned that additional cuts to the domestic 
fusion energy program may undermine U.S. advances in fusion and 
the U.S. ability to take advantage of scientific developments 
of the ITER project.
    The Office of Science believes that it can take advantage 
of international programs and facilities to build and maintain 
U.S. expertise in fusion energy sciences. However, a February 
2012 Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee report cautioned 
that international facilities in Asia and Europe will not be 
operating for several more years and international 
collaborations cannot come at the expense of a domestic 
research program that can benefit from ITER. The Committee 
directs the Office of Science to assess the impact to the 
domestic fusion energy sciences workforce and the ability of 
the United States to take advantage of ITER to advance fusion 
energy before recommending any further cuts to the domestic 
program. The Committee also directs the Office of Science to 
assess alternatives to participating in the ITER project, 
including reducing contributions to the project, and the impact 
of withdrawing from the project, if necessary, to maintain 
domestic capabilities.
    Further, the Committee directs the Office of Science to 
include a project data sheet with details of all project costs 
until the completion of the project for ITER in the fiscal year 
2014 budget submission. The Committee understands that DOE 
provides funding for ITER as a Major Item of Equipment rather 
than a line item construction project, which would be 
consistent with DOE Order 413.3B. However, the Committee feels 
that a multi-billion dollar project, especially of this scale 
and complexity, should be treated as a construction project and 
follow DOE Order 413.3B guidance.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommends $117,790,000 as requested to 
support infrastructure activities.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $83,000,000, a decrease of 
$1,000,000, for Safeguards and Security activities. The 
Committee encourages the Office of Safeguards and Security to 
make cybersecurity its highest priority. The Committee is aware 
that in mid-2011, three Office of Science national laboratories 
were the targets of cyber attacks. Fortunately, the attacks 
caused little disruption to lab activities, but mission impact 
and associated costs could have been significant with more 
sophisticated attacks to mission critical networks. The 
Committee supports investments to improve the Office of 
Science's security program to minimize the likelihood and 
impact of future attacks.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee provides $190,000,000, a decrease of 
$12,551,000 below the budget request, for the Office of Science 
Program Direction.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee provides $14,500,000 as requested. The 
Committee supports the Office of Science's efforts in assessing 
whether science workforce development programs meet established 
goals by collecting and analyzing data, including pre- and 
post-participation surveys and longitudinal participant 
surveys. The Committee commends the Office of Science for 
conducting the first longitudinal study by starting with the 
Science Undergraduate Lab Internship program and encourages the 
Office of Science to continue these efforts and expand them to 
other programs. The Committee believes this data is critical to 
determine whether these program are successful in attracting 
students to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
careers relevant to the Department of Energy.

               Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $275,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     350,000,000
Committee Recommendation................................     312,000,000

    The Committee recommends $312,000,000 for the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency-Energy [ARPA-E] which is the 
authorized level under the America COMPETES Act. ARPA-E is 
responsible for funding high-risk research and development 
projects to meet long-term energy challenges. The Committee is 
encouraged that, as an early indicator of success, 11 projects, 
which received $40,000,000 from ARPA-E, have secured more than 
$200,000,000 in outside private capital investment to further 
develop these technologies. The Committee encourages DOE to 
continue tracking these projects to demonstrate how Federal 
investments have developed more energy efficient technologies 
and potentially new industries.

              Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program


                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      38,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      38,000,000

                          OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2012....................................    -$38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     -38,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     -38,000,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Committee recommends $38,000,000 in funding for the 
Loan Guarantee Program. This funding is offset by $38,000,000 
in receipts from loan guarantee applicants. The Committee does 
not recommend any additional loan authority in fiscal year 
2013.

        ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       9,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,000,000

    The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Advanced 
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.

                      Departmental Administration


                                (GROSS)

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $237,623,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     230,783,000
Committee recommendation................................     220,783,000

                        (MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2012....................................   -$111,623,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................    -108,188,000
Committee recommendation................................    -108,188,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $126,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     122,595,000
Committee recommendation................................     112,595,000

    The Committee recommends $220,783,000 for Department 
Administration. The Office of the Secretary of Energy shall 
ensure that it is a full participant in the Administration's 
efforts to identify the best locations to site interstate 
transmission lines to maximize access to the nation's most 
significant renewable energy resources. Additionally, the 
Department is directed to collect, compile, and maintain data 
on the efforts of the tax code on meeting the nation's energy 
challenges, such as improving energy security, pollution 
reduction, and improving energy technology innovation and 
competitiveness, in a manner that will be useful during the tax 
reform debates.

                    Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      43,468,000
Committee recommendation................................      43,468,000

    The Committee recommends $43,468,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES


                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

    The Committee recommends $11,510,886,000 for the National 
Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], an increase of 
$510,886,000 above fiscal year 2012 and an increase of 
$1,623,859,000, or 16.4 percent, compared to fiscal year 2010. 
The Committee has provided significant increases to the NNSA 
budget over the last 3 fiscal years to respond to important 
national security imperatives, which include accelerating 
efforts to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials by December 
2013 and modernizing the nuclear weapons stockpile to sustain a 
safe, secure, and reliable nuclear arsenal without testing.
    Poor Project Management.--The Committee is concerned about 
NNSA's record of inadequate project management and oversight. 
The Committee is worried that large funding increases will make 
NNSA more vulnerable to waste, abuse, duplication, and 
mismanagement if NNSA does not take the necessary steps to 
address project management weaknesses. All of NNSA's major 
construction projects exceed the initial cost estimates. For 
example, the cost of a new uranium facility at Y-12, known as 
the Uranium Processing Facility, has grown from $600,000,000 to 
$6,000,000,000--ten times more expensive than originally 
projected. In addition, most of NNSA's major construction 
projects are behind schedule. For example, a new facility at 
Savannah River, known as the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, is 
nearing completion but is 14 years behind schedule. An even 
greater concern is NNSA's inability to adequately assess 
alternatives, including the use of existing facilities, before 
embarking on multi-billion dollar projects. For example, NNSA 
spent $700,000,000 over the last 13 years to design a plutonium 
disposition facility at Savannah River only to terminate the 
project in fiscal year 2012 and determine that existing 
facilities could meet mission requirements.
    The Committee is concerned that NNSA has not implemented a 
number of recommendations made by the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office [GAO] aimed at improving NNSA's project 
management that could have avoided project management mistakes. 
The Committee directs NNSA to implement the following 
recommendations and report to GAO every 6 months beginning on 
October 1, 2012 on the status of implementing these 
recommendations until GAO validates that the recommendations 
have been fully implemented: (1) NNSA should assess the risks, 
costs, and schedule needs for all military requirements prior 
to beginning a life extension program [LEP] and developing 
realistic cost baselines and schedules that acknowledge 
identified risks and reflect sufficient contingency for risk 
mitigation; (2) NNSA should conduct independent cost estimates 
for all major projects and revise its cost estimating guidance 
to include reconciling differences between the results of 
independent and other cost estimates; and (3) NNSA should 
conduct rigorous analyses of alternatives to justify selected 
project options.
    GAO Study on NNSA Project Management.--Owing to the 
Committee's ongoing concerns with the effectiveness of and 
accountability for project management at NNSA, including 
construction projects and life extension programs, the 
Committee seeks a root cause assessment of project management. 
Prior reports from the GAO on individual programs and projects 
have provided evidence of schedule slips, significant cost 
growth, reduced scope, and failure to adequately assess 
alternatives. Many of the risks that contributed to these 
outcomes could have been or were in fact anticipated early in 
project design. As GAO has noted in numerous reports, adequate 
front-end planning and the development of high-quality cost and 
schedule estimates may help avoid the pitfalls that NNSA's 
projects have frequently experienced. To assess NNSA's 
management of projects in the early stages of project design, 
the Committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct an 
analysis with recommendations for improvement by May 1, 2013 of 
(1) the effectiveness of the process by which NNSA conducts 
analyses of alternatives prior to project starts; (2) how NNSA 
plans for and executes its projects' design phases prior to the 
establishment of a cost and schedule baseline; (3) the roles, 
responsibilities, and accountability of Federal project 
directors in the early stages of major projects; and (4) the 
impact of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board reviews 
on the cost, schedule, and scope of projects. In each of these 
areas, the analysis shall consider NNSA's compliance with 
Departmental orders, directives, and other guidance applicable 
to project management.
    Report on Changes to Cost, Schedule, and Scope of Major 
Projects.--The Committee is concerned that NNSA is not 
communicating changes in cost, schedule, and scope in a 
transparent and timely manner. For example, a March 2012 GAO 
study found that NNSA, to avoid more cost increases, would have 
eliminated certain critical capabilities, such as plutonium-
related mission for homeland security and nonproliferation, 
that were part of the original project scope for the new 
plutonium facility at Los Alamos. These changes were not 
communicated to the Committee. The Committee directs NNSA to 
submit a report every 6 months on October 1 and April 1, with 
the first report due on October 1, 2012, on the status of major 
projects, such as construction projects and life extension 
programs, which are estimated to cost a minimum of 
$750,000,000. The report shall include, among other things, the 
name of the project, a brief description of the mission need, a 
brief summary of project status, the baseline cost or expected 
cost range and contingencies, expected completion date, scope 
of work, and an explanation of changes, if any, to cost, 
schedule, scope, or contingencies.
    JASON Study on Surveillance Program.--According to NNSA's 
2011 Strategic Plan, NNSA will complete a transformation of the 
weapons stockpile surveillance program by 2014 to better detect 
initial design and production defects for life extended 
weapons, materials aging defects, and predictive performance 
trends for the enduring stockpile. The Committee understands 
that this change in the surveillance program involves greater 
emphasis on more extensive testing of weapons at the component 
level to improve early identification of defects due to aging 
and testing fewer weapons at a system-level. However, the 
Committee is concerned about the consequences of this change on 
annual assessments to the safety, security, and reliability of 
the stockpile. The Committee directs the JASON group of 
scientific advisers, which has not reviewed the surveillance 
program in more than a decade, to submit to the Committee by 
April 1, 2013 an assessment of NNSA's surveillance program. The 
assessment should determine whether NNSA's changes to its 
surveillance program raise any significant problems in the 
annual assessment of the stockpile and whether NNSA's approach 
is appropriate for a smaller and aging stockpile.
    Plutonium Mission.--The Committee understands that 
construction of a new plutonium facility at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, known as the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Replacement Nuclear Facility [CMRR], has been delayed by at 
least 5 years.
    However, the Committee is troubled that NNSA has failed to 
put forth an alternative plutonium strategy. While it has 
identified funds for some aspects of plutonium research and 
sustainment requirements, NNSA does not have a comprehensive 
plutonium plan including research and surveillance requirements 
needed to support pit reuse, transportation, storage, and 
security. As GAO reported in March 2012, NNSA decided to de-
inventory plutonium from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
before determining whether CMRR or other facilities could 
accommodate the research, storage, and environmental testing 
capabilities that Livermore possesses. In addition, NNSA is 
focusing the design of CMRR strictly on meeting stockpile 
requirements, without fully considering DOE's and other Federal 
agencies' missions involving plutonium that need to be 
accommodated in such areas as nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear 
forensics, nuclear counterterrorism, and homeland security.
    The Committee directs NNSA to submit a comprehensive 
plutonium strategy by October 15, 2012 that assesses needed 
plutonium research requirements for nuclear weapons stockpile 
activities and other plutonium missions that details any 
modifications to existing or planned facilities or any new 
facilities that will be needed to support these missions, and 
the funding and time needed to implement the new strategy, 
including costs and schedules to upgrade existing facilities, 
elevate or maintain security, and transport materials. NNSA's 
comprehensive plutonium strategy should be incorporated into 
future Stockpile Stewardship Management Plans consistent with 
the reporting requirements of section 1043 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.
    While NNSA works toward this plan, the Committee supports 
efforts to sustain pit sustainment and pit manufacturing 
capabilities and move toward a new strategy, including 
$35,000,000 to accelerate material stabilization, repackaging, 
and de-inventory of the PF-4 vault, $141,685,000 for plutonium 
sustainment activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory, 
$8,889,000 to continue upgrades at PF-4, and $9,000,000 for pit 
reuse studies. The Committee encourages NNSA to use available 
funds to procure and install additional analytical chemistry 
equipment to maximize the authorized use of nuclear material in 
the new Radiological Laboratory, and to initiate facility start 
up activities to enable full operation of Radiological 
Laboratory capabilities. In order to ensure continuity of key 
plutonium capabilities, the Committee also encourages NNSA to 
use available funds to accelerate the relocation of sample 
preparation activities from CMR to PF-4 and procuring and 
installing material characterization equipment in PF-4.
    Domestic Uranium Enrichment Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Project.--The Committee recommends authorizing 
the Secretary of Energy to transfer up to $150,000,000 in NNSA 
funds to further develop and demonstrate the technical 
feasibility of domestic national security-related enrichment 
technologies. The transfer authority shall be contingent on the 
Secretary of Energy securing $150,000,000 in fiscal year 2012 
to support the first phase of the research, development, and 
demonstration project as well securing a new management 
structure and obtaining intellectual property and other rights 
to protect taxpayers against possible technical failure. The 
Committee recommends transfer authority across all of NNSA 
because the primary justification for investing in indigenous 
uranium enrichment technology is to provide a secure fuel 
supply of low enriched uranium for tritium production--a 
program funded under nuclear weapons activities--and to meet 
future needs of highly enriched uranium for nuclear-powered 
aircraft carriers and submarines--a program funded under naval 
reactors.
    Improving Relationship Between NNSA and Nuclear Weapons 
Laboratories.--The Committee is concerned about recent findings 
in a February 2012 National Research Council study that 
concluded that the overall management relationship between NNSA 
and its national security laboratories is dysfunctional. The 
Committee recommends that NNSA and the laboratories identify 
and eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic functions that affect 
the quality of science and engineering at the labs and detract 
from primary mission goals. The elimination of these functions 
shall not undermine operational goals related to safety, 
security, environmental responsibility and fiscal integrity. 
The NNSA shall notify the Committee of the functions that are 
to be eliminated. According to the National Research Council, 
many of the bureaucratic problems are within the power of the 
labs to address or driven by governance strategies that can be 
changed. The Committee also recommends that NNSA establish a 
technical advisory committee to resolve technical disputes on 
science and engineering matters between NNSA and the 
laboratories.
    Joint Institutes.--The Committee is encouraged by NNSA's 
efforts to develop joint institutes with universities to help 
develop the future NNSA workforce and create learning and 
research opportunities for universities. The Committee directs 
NNSA to provide a report 90 days after enactment of this Act on 
its work with universities, including the goals of the 
partnerships, benefits to the taxpayer, and budget 
requirements.

                           Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $7,233,997,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   7,577,341,000
Committee recommendation................................   7,577,341,000

    The Committee recommends $7,577,341,000 for National 
Nuclear Security Administration's [NNSA] Weapons Activities, an 
increase of $343,344,000 above fiscal year 2012. The Committee 
recommendation would fund all of the highest-priority 
activities for nuclear weapons modernization, including 
continuing production of refurbished W76 warheads, continuing 
design and engineering work for the B61 life extension program, 
continuing the life extension study for the W78, replacing 
critical components, such as neutron generators and gas 
transfer systems, on many of the currently deployed weapons, 
sustaining funding for a strengthened surveillance program, and 
accelerating construction of a new uranium facility at Y-12.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    The Committee recommends $2,078,274,000, which is 
$10,000,000 below the request, for directed stockpile work.
    Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends 
$543,931,000 as requested for Life Extension Programs.
    B61 Life Extension Program.--The Committee recommends 
$339,000,000, a decrease of $30,000,000 below the request, due 
to carry over balances. The Committee is concerned about 
significant delays in completing Phase 6.2A activities and 
establishing a validated and precise cost, schedule, and scope 
baseline. Without a validated cost, schedule, and scope 
baseline, the Committee cannot evaluate the entire life-cycle 
costs of the program, assess the impact on other weapons 
activities and proposed offsets to pay for increasing costs for 
the program, determine whether the proposed schedule meets 
military requirements, or ensure that any modifications to the 
weapon do not impact its safety, security, and reliability. The 
Committee directs that no funding be used for B61 life 
extension program activities until NNSA submits to the 
Committee a validated cost, schedule, and scope baseline.
    W76 Life Extension Program.--The Committee is concerned 
about a significant funding decrease for a program that is 
refurbishing a weapon that makes up the largest share of our 
nuclear deterrent on the most survivable leg of the Triad. The 
fiscal year 2013 budget request and future funding projections 
would cause a 3 year delay in completing this program, increase 
costs, and impact the Navy's operations. In addition, the shift 
in funding to support the B61 is not fully justified because 
the B61 life extension program is behind schedule and will not 
be able to efficiently spend the requested amount. For these 
reasons, the Committee recommends $204,931,000, an increase of 
$30,000,000, for the W76 life extension program.
    Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $590,409,000 
as requested. Of these funds, at least $181,000,000 shall be 
used for surveillance activities. Within these funds, the 
Committee also recommends $76,590,000, as requested, for the 
W78 life extension Phase 6.2/2A study and $59,662,000, as 
requested, for the W88 Alt 370 program.
    Weapons Dismantlement.--The Committee recommends 
$51,265,000 as requested. The Committee commends NNSA for 
completing dismantlements of both the W62 and B53 one year 
ahead of schedule. The Committee encourages NNSA to continue 
this record of success for future weapons systems scheduled for 
dismantlement.
    Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $892,669,000, 
a decrease of $10,000,000 below the request. Within these 
funds, at least $57,000,000 shall be used to support 
surveillance activities. Also within these funds, the Committee 
recommends $199,632,000 for research and development 
certification and safety activities, of which at least 
$30,000,000 shall be used to prepare for the next Gemini 
experiment and plutonium experiments on JASPER at the Nevada 
Nuclear Security Site.
    The Committee is concerned about significant increases to 
the Production Support Account. Production Support represents a 
base manufacturing capability and is relatively insensitive to 
major shifts in activities, such as life extension programs, 
dismantlement, and surveillance activities. However, the budget 
requests over the last several fiscal years have included 
significant increases for Production Support. The Committee 
directs NNSA to provide additional information in future budget 
justifications to explain these increasing costs.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    The Committee recommends $1,710,770,000, an increase of 
$20,000,000 above the request, for NNSA Campaigns.
    Science Campaign.--The Committee recommends $350,104,000 as 
requested. Within these funds, at least $34,000,000 shall be 
used at Sandia's Z facility to continue critical plutonium and 
other physics experiments to support the stockpile stewardship 
program and improve the experimental capability of Z with 
special nuclear materials.
    Engineering Campaign.--The Committee recommends 
$150,571,000 as requested. The Committee is concerned that the 
core surveillance program and the enhanced surveillance 
campaign are not properly integrated. One of the stated goals 
of NNSA's 2011 Strategic Plan is to have a weapons stockpile 
surveillance program that can detect materials aging defects 
and predictive performance trends by 2014. According to a 
February 2012 GAO assessment of the surveillance program, NNSA 
will not be able to meet this goal if the core surveillance 
program does not take advantage of new technologies and 
approaches developed by the enhanced surveillance campaign, and 
the research goals of the enhanced surveillance campaign are 
not tied to specific mission needs. The Committee directs NNSA 
to complete a corrective action plan, as recommended by GAO, as 
expeditiously as possible, to better integrate these two 
programs and establish metrics to measure progress in its 
implementation.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield 
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $460,000,000 as requested. 
The Committee understands the importance of the National 
Ignition Facility [NIF] and supports NNSA's efforts to ensure 
the long term viability of the facility when the National 
Ignition Campaign ends. The Committee encourages NNSA to work 
closely with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to help 
manage the required full transition of the facility to the 
laboratory's standard cost accounting practices. The Committee 
directs NNSA, with congressional notification to the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees, to use up to $140,000,000 of 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's internal additional 
direct purchasing power--generated by the overall lowering of 
the laboratory's ``Blended Rate'' resulting from NIF's 
transition away from a Self Constructed Asset Pool indirect 
rate and reduced management fee--to increase the level of the 
laboratory's Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities funds 
dedicated to supporting NIF. The Committee recommends that NNSA 
move the NIF operating budget to the Readiness in Technical 
Base and Facilities budget line, which would be consistent with 
the facility's transition to regular operations and how other 
facilities are funded. The Committee also recommends that NNSA 
consider alternatives to operating the facility 24 hours a day, 
7 days a week.
    Also within the funds for inertial confinement fusion, at 
least $62,000,000 and $55,000,000 shall be used for inertial 
confinement fusion activities at the University of Rochester's 
Omega facility and Sandia National Laboratory's Z facility, 
respectively. The Committee also recommends at least $5,000,000 
as requested for the Naval Research Laboratory to continue 
operating laser facilities focused on laser plasma 
interactions, target hydrodynamics, materials, and advanced 
ignition concepts.
    The Committee remains concerned about NIF's ability to 
achieve ignition--the primary purpose of constructing the 
facility--by the end of fiscal year 2012 when the National 
Ignition Campaign ends and the facility is to transition to 
regular ignition operations and pursue broad scientific 
applications. The Committee directs NNSA to establish an 
independent advisory committee as soon as possible to help set 
a strategic direction for inertial confinement fusion and high-
energy density physics research and determine how best to use 
current facilities to advance this scientific field. If NIF 
does not achieve ignition by the end of fiscal year 2012 using 
a cryogenically layered deuterium and tritium target that 
produces a neutron yield with a gain greater than 1, the 
Committee directs NNSA to submit a report by November 30, 2012 
that (1) explains the scientific and technical barriers to 
achieving ignition; (2) the steps NNSA will take to achieve 
ignition with a revised schedule; and (3) the impact on the 
stockpile stewardship program.
    To meet the complex and increased mission requirements of 
the Inertial Confinement Fusion and Science Campaigns at a 
period of constrained funding, the Committee urges the 
Department to continue its activities to ensure a multiple 
vendor base capable of cost-effectively developing and 
fabricating the full range of targets for inertial confinement 
fusion facilities that support the stockpile stewardship 
program.
    Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee 
recommends $620,000,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above the 
request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends 
$69,000,000 for activities associated with the exascale 
initiative, such as targeted research and development efforts 
with major vendors and advanced memory research and development 
activities.
    Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends $130,095,000 
as requested. The Committee is concerned about securing 
sufficient quantities of unencumbered uranium fuel for tritium 
production in Tennessee Valley Authority reactors. For 
technical or economic reasons, indigenous U.S. enrichment 
technologies may not be available in the future to supply low 
enriched uranium for tritium production. For this reason, the 
Committee directs NNSA to submit a report by February 1, 2013 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that 
describes current supplies of low enriched uranium for tritium 
production, low enriched uranium supply options, and the costs 
of these alternatives. The Committee also recommends 
eliminating this campaign from the budget request starting in 
fiscal year 2014. Instead, the Committee recommends moving 
activities associated with non-nuclear readiness to Directed 
Stockpile Work under Stockpile Services. Activities associated 
with Tritium Readiness should appear as a separate Tritium 
Production account with its own line item to increase 
visibility of this program.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    The Committee recommends $2,239,828,000 as requested. The 
Committee directs NNSA to provide in future budget 
justifications an explanation as to why NNSA has proposed 
funding for any construction project not originally included in 
the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.
    Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends 
$1,419,403,000 as requested. Within these funds, the Committee 
recommends $5,100,000 for the purchase of a major item of 
equipment--a high-resolution computed tomography system for pit 
scanning at the Pantex Plant.
    Nuclear Operations Capability Support.--The Committee 
recommends $203,346,000 as requested. Within these funds, the 
Committee recommends $35,000,000 as requested to accelerate 
material stabilization, repackaging, and de-inventory of the 
PF-4 vault at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to reduce 
nuclear safety risks and meet future needs for a new plutonium 
strategy.
    Science, Technology, and Engineering Support.--The 
Committee recommends $166,945,000 as requested. The Committee 
supports NNSA's Capability Based Facilities and Infrastructure 
initiative and recommends $73,000,000 as requested. Since the 
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program ends in 
fiscal year 2012, the Committee believes it is important that 
NNSA continue to reduce deferred maintenance on aging 
infrastructure and reduce the size of its footprint. To 
increase transparency in NNSA's efforts to sustain existing 
physical infrastructure, the Committee directs NNSA to identify 
funds for maintenance and operations by site as separate line 
items under the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities 
Account starting with the fiscal year 2014 budget submission. 
The sites include the three national security labs, the Y-12 
National Security Complex, the Kansas City Plant, the Savannah 
River Site, and the Nevada National Security Site. The budget 
justification shall include an explanation of how NNSA plans to 
manage deferred maintenance costs, including ways NNSA will 
stabilize deferred maintenance for mission critical facilities 
and dispose of excess capacity. Further, the budget shall 
include total deferred maintenance backlog and how much NNSA is 
spending at each site each year to reduce deferred maintenance. 
The Committee recommends using the Office of Science's Science 
Laboratories Infrastructure budget information on deferred 
maintenance as a model.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $450,134,000 as 
requested.
    Project 13-D-301, Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades, 
Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories.--The 
Committee recommends $23,000,000 as requested to upgrade 50-
year-old electrical distribution systems at Lawrence Livermore 
and Los Alamos National Laboratories.
    Project 12-D-301, TRU Waste Facilities, Los Alamos, New 
Mexico.--The Committee recommends $24,204,000 as requested to 
begin construction of a new transuranic waste facility to meet 
regulatory requirements of the State of New Mexico.
    Project 11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos, 
New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $8,889,000 as requested 
to continue the second phase of this effort to mitigate safety 
risks to workers identified by the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
Safety Board.
    Project 10-D-501, Nuclear Facility Risk Reduction, Y-12, 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $17,909,000 as 
requested to complete upgrading equipment and infrastructure in 
buildings 9212 and 9204-2E for continued safe uranium 
operations until the new Uranium Processing Facility is 
operational.
    Project 09-D-404, Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase 
II, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--The 
Committee recommends $11,332,000 as requested to complete the 
refurbishment of non-nuclear capabilities, such as rocket sled 
tracks and mechanical shock facilities, to test weapons 
components needed for the B61 and future life extension 
programs.
    Project 08-D-802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex 
Plant, Amarillo, Texas.--The Committee recommends $24,800,000 
as requested to build a new facility to make high explosive 
hemispheres for nuclear weapons that is more reliable and can 
meet the projected workload for life extension programs.
    Project 06-D-141, PED, Uranium Process Facility, Y-12, Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $340,000,000 as 
requested to accelerate construction of a new uranium facility 
with a goal of transitioning out of building 9212 beginning in 
2019 and completing construction in 2022. Within these funds, 
the Committee provides $160,000,000 as requested to complete 
project, engineering, and design work and continue site 
preparation work. The Committee recommends that the remaining 
$180,000,000 for construction not be available until NNSA 
reaches a 90 percent engineering design phase and develops a 
cost, schedule, and scope project baseline, which is estimated 
to occur by the end of calendar year 2012.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation 
Asset program is $219,361,000 as requested. The Committee 
directs the Secure Transportation Asset program to work with 
Directed Stockpile Work and the Readiness in Technical Base and 
Facilities programs to identify additional costs, if any, in 
implementing a new plutonium strategy that may involve 
additional transport of special nuclear materials and the 
impact on its operations.

               NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

    The Committee recommends $247,552,000 as requested. The 
Committee supports the evolution of the NNSA nuclear weapons 
labs to national security labs. The Committee believes NNSA's 
investment in infrastructure and expertise to support the 
nuclear weapons program should be exploited for broader 
national security missions, including nuclear counterterrorism 
and counterproliferation. However, the Committee is concerned 
that NNSA does not have a clear strategy in place that links 
the unique capabilities of the labs and supporting NNSA 
infrastructure to clear mission goals and funding requirements 
to support the Department of Defense and the intelligence 
community.

                            SITE STEWARDSHIP

    The Committee recommends $88,249,000, a decrease of 
$1,752,000 below the budget request. The Committee encourages 
NNSA to report on cost savings and cost avoidances related to 
its energy modernization and investment program.

                        DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation for the Defense Nuclear 
Security program is $643,285,000 as requested. The Committee is 
encouraged by NNSA's efforts to find cost efficiencies while 
still meeting security requirements. The Committee encourages 
NNSA to continue implementing security reform initiatives to 
better understand and quantify risks and develop the most cost-
effective approach to security.

                          NNSA CIO ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommends $155,022,000 as requested to 
support NNSA's information technology and cyber security 
activities. The Committee supports NNSA's effort to consolidate 
all information technology and cyber security activities under 
the NNSA's Office of the Chief Information Officer. The 
Committee believes a focused and common approach will be more 
effective in identifying, mitigating, and combating risks to 
NNSA's and the sites' computer networks.

            SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING CAPABILITY

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000, a decrease of 
$8,248,000, for Science, Technology, and Engineering Capability 
activities. The funding shall be used to continue Advanced 
Analysis, Tools, and Technologies activities to support the 
intelligence community and maintain the nuclear technical 
capabilities for nuclear weapons assessments.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2012...................................\1\$2,324,303,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   2,458,631,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,458,631,000

\1\Does not include rescission of $21,000,000 under Public Law 112-331.

    The Committee recommends $2,458,631,000 for Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation. The Committee commends NNSA for making 
significant progress in meeting the goal of securing all 
vulnerable nuclear materials within 4 years. Since April 2009, 
when President Obama announced the 4-year goal, NNSA has 
removed from international locations over 1,200 kilograms of 
highly enriched uranium and plutonium--enough material for 
approximately 50 nuclear weapons. As part of this effort, in 
just 3 years NNSA has removed all highly enriched uranium from 
eight countries, including Mexico and Ukraine in March 2012. 
NNSA also removed over three kilograms of plutonium from Sweden 
in March 2012 in its first shipment of plutonium to the United 
States. Further, NNSA has completed security upgrades at 32 
additional buildings in Russia containing weapons-usable 
materials and downblended 2.9 metric tons of Russian highly 
enriched uranium. The Committee provides funding to continue 
NNSA's accelerated efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear 
materials.

       NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommends $418,186,000, a decrease of 
$130,000,000, to support investment in developing advanced 
nuclear detection technologies. Within these funds, the 
Committee recommends $65,000,000 for the National Center for 
Nuclear Security at the Nevada National Security Center of 
which $10,000,000 is for research and development activities 
for technologies needed to verify future treaties and train 
national and international arms control inspectors. Also within 
these funds, the Committee recommends $158,650,000 for nuclear 
detonation detection to meet production requirements of 
satellite sensors. The Committee recommends no funds for a 
domestic uranium enrichment research, development, and 
demonstration project under this account. Rather, the Committee 
recommends transfer authority to the Secretary of Energy of up 
to $150,000,000 from NNSA to fund this project.
    The Committee is concerned that current radiation detection 
equipment is only capable of detecting certain nuclear 
materials when they are unshielded or lightly shielded. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that not less than $5,000,000 
be made available to operationally test promising passive new 
technologies that are able to detect both heavily shielded and 
unshielded special nuclear material.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $150,119,000 as requested. The 
Committee recognizes NNSA's efforts in re-evaluating the need 
for the Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention, which 
has been renamed Global Security Through Science Partnerships. 
The Committee understands that the study concluded that the 
transfer of weapons-usable information and knowledge remains a 
threat, and that NNSA is well suited to help address this 
threat because of its long-standing relationships with the 
scientific and technical community worldwide. However, the 
Committee is concerned that expanding the geographic reach of 
the program and poorly defined, ambiguous strategies, such as 
establishing a shared code of ethics and responsibility in the 
global scientific community, within a constrained budget is not 
the most efficient or effective use of funds. In addition, the 
Committee is not convinced that NNSA is the best agency or 
organization to carry out this activity. For this reason, the 
Committee provides no funds for the Global Security Through 
Science Partnerships unless NNSA provides the Committee by 
November 1, 2012 a clear strategy and achievable performance 
metrics that demonstrate how this effort will reduce the risk 
of transferring weapons of mass destruction knowledge.

       INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

    The Committee recommends $368,000,000, which is $57,000,000 
above the request. The Committee is encouraged by NNSA's 
efforts in completing security upgrades at 218 out of 229 
buildings that store weapons usable nuclear material and 
warheads in Russia and other former Soviet countries. The 
Committee also supports NNSA's efforts to continue additional 
upgrades at 18 sites to address insider threats and further 
reduce the risk of material theft. These upgrades directly 
support the U.S. effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear 
materials around the world within 4 years by securing warheads 
and weapons-exploitable nuclear materials at their source. The 
Committee is also encouraged by NNSA's efforts in preventing 
and detecting the illicit transfer of nuclear materials by 
installing radiation detection equipment at 462 sites--421 
borders, airports, and strategic ports and 41 Megaports across 
the world. The Committee also supports NNSA's efforts in 
deploying mobile detection systems to expand the reach of 
detection capabilities.
    The Committee is concerned, however, by NNSA's decision to 
significantly curtail Second Line of Defense Activities. The 
Core program installs radiation detection equipment at 
strategic borders, airports, and shipping ports in Russia, 
other Former Soviet Union states, Eastern Europe, and other key 
countries. Complementing these activities is the Megaports 
Initiative, which provides radiation detection equipment to key 
international shipping seaports to enable screening of cargo 
containers for nuclear and radiological materials. NNSA's 
stated goal over the last several years was to accelerate 
efforts to deploy detection equipment at 550 sites in 30 
countries and 100 international seaports by the end of 2018. In 
addition, a March 2012 program review found that Second Line of 
Defense equipment is being effectively employed and adequately 
maintained by the majority of partner countries and detection 
capabilities of these countries have significant improved. 
However, the fiscal year 2013 budget request proposed a cut of 
$171,000,000, or 65 percent, to these activities. The main 
justification for a pause in activities is the need to conduct 
a strategic review of the program. The Committee supports 
NNSA's decision to review the effectiveness of this program and 
recommend new strategies to better detect nuclear smuggling. 
However, a cut of this magnitude would not be sufficient to 
sustain already deployed systems, retain expert personnel, and 
meet international obligations to deploy additional radiation 
detection systems. In addition, nuclear smuggling continues to 
be a significant problem. According to the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, there were 147 incidents of nuclear smuggling in 
2011. Four incidents involved significant quantities of highly 
enriched uranium and one of these incidents was related to an 
attempted sale of this material.
    The Committee directs NNSA to submit a new strategic plan 
by December 1, 2012, which should include long-term goals and 
objectives, approaches for accomplishing the goals and 
objectives, performance goals that are objective, quantifiable, 
and measurable, and the resources needed to meet the 
performance goals. As part of its evaluation of the program, 
NNSA should report on the percentage of global shipping traffic 
currently scanned, incidents of nuclear and radiation 
detection, the status and type of current inventory of 
radiation portal monitors, and total equipment requirements 
needed to meet the President's stated goal of scanning 50 
percent of global shipping traffic by 2018. The strategy should 
consider private-public partnerships that may reduce costs of 
developing, deploying, and maintaining detection technologies. 
As NNSA develops its strategy, the Committee recommends that it 
adopt the goal of reducing the cost of installation beyond 
current levels of $1,000,000-$2,000,000 per site for foreign 
crossings and $8,000,000-$15,000,000 per seaport. The strategy 
should also consider the viability of using managed service 
agreements for the acquisition of detection technologies to 
replace outdated equipment more frequently and at lower cost.

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

    The Committee recommends $921,305,000 as requested to 
support the plutonium disposition program and construction 
projects.
    U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee 
recommends $528,715,000 including $498,979,000 as requested for 
the U.S. plutonium disposition and $29,736,000 as requested for 
the U.S. uranium disposition programs.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends $388,802,000 as 
requested to support construction of the MOX Fuel 
Fabrication Facility [MFFF]. The Committee remains concerned 
with the overall management of the U.S. plutonium disposition 
program. The Committee supports NNSA's decision to terminate 
the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility because of 
significant cost overruns. However, the Committee is concerned 
by NNSA's failure to identify alternatives earlier, before 
spending $700,000,000 over 13 years and determining that 
existing facilities could be used to meet mission needs. The 
Committee is also concerned by an increase in estimated annual 
operating costs for the MOX facility. Estimated 
operating costs have grown from $156,000,000 a year in fiscal 
year 2011 to $356,000,000 a year in fiscal year 2012 and now 
are estimated at $499,000,000 a year--an increase of more than 
200 percent in just 2 years. NNSA has failed to provide a 
sufficient justification for this increase. The Committee is 
also concerned about testing needed to use fuel made from 
weapons-grade plutonium for boiling water reactors. Testing may 
significantly increase costs and it is not clear whether the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] has sufficient resources to 
evaluate the testing data to make a determination about the 
safe use of this fuel. The Committee directs NNSA to work with 
the NRC to identify the resources needed to evaluate these 
tests and determine the impact resource shortfalls may have on 
program execution.
    Project 99-D-143, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, 
Savannah River, South Carolina.--The Committee recommends 
$388,802,000 as requested.
    Russian Surplus Materials Disposition.--The Committee 
recommends $3,788,000 as requested.

                   GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

    The Committee recommends $539,021,000, which is $73,000,000 
above the request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends 
$201,021,000 for the highly enriched uranium [HEU] reactor 
conversion program, $213,000,000 for nuclear and radiological 
material removal, and $125,000,000 for nuclear and radiological 
material protection.
    The Committee is concerned by NNSA's decision to delay the 
shut down or conversion of research reactors that use HEU 
around the world. HEU-fueled research reactors have some of the 
world's weakest security measures and a determined terrorist 
could use HEU reactor fuel for a nuclear device. NNSA's stated 
goal was to convert or shut down 200 research reactors by 2022. 
The fiscal year 2013 budget submission would delay this goal by 
3 years. Because each reactor conversion takes approximately 2 
to 5 years, depending on a variety of factors, such as time 
needed to modify facilities to accept low enriched uranium 
[LEU] fuel, funding is needed in advance to prepare for these 
conversions. A funding shortfall in fiscal year 2013 means 
three less reactors converted beginning in fiscal year 2014. 
The Committee recommendation would allow NNSA to meet its 
original goal of converting or shutting down 200 research 
reactors by 2022. The Committee is encouraged by NNSA efforts 
to engage Russia in shutting down or converting 71 HEU research 
reactors. The United States has verified the shutdown of five 
HEU Russian research reactors over the past 2 years and six 
reactors are undergoing feasibility studies to convert them to 
LEU use.
    The Committee also supports NNSA efforts in developing a 
capability which does not currently exist in the U.S. to 
produce Moly-99--a medical isotope used in 16 million nuclear 
medicine procedures in the United States each year--with LEU. 
The Committee encourages NNSA to accelerate efforts to help 
current producers convert to LEU as quickly as possible by 
reducing the technical, political, economic, and regulatory 
hurdles associated with non-HEU-based Moly-99 production. The 
Committee encourages NNSA to work with other Federal agencies 
to develop options and alternatives to ensure a reliable 
domestic supply of non-HEU-based Moly-99, such as preferential 
procurement of non-HEU-based Moly-99 by the medical community 
and disincentives for the procurement of HEU-based Moly-99.
    The Committee is also concerned about a proposed 60 percent 
reduction in activities to remove and dispose of excess or 
abandoned radiological materials in other countries. While 
radiological materials present a lower national security risk, 
radiological materials could be used for a radiological 
dispersion device that could have catastrophic consequences, 
including infrastructure damage and radioactive contamination 
that could prohibit the use of a large geographical area and 
create economic losses in the billions of dollars. For this 
reason, the Committee recommends $20,000,000, an increase of 
$12,000,000, for the International Radiological Material 
Removal program. The Committee also recommends $75,000,000 for 
the Domestic Material Protection Program, of which not less 
than $20,000,000 should be used to accelerate security upgrades 
at U.S. hospitals and medical facilities. GAO recently found 
several examples of radiological sources at hospitals and 
medical facilities that were vulnerable to possible tampering, 
sabotage, or outright theft. In the absence of accelerated 
funding, it will be years before all radiological materials at 
hospitals and medical facilities located in the United States 
will be adequately secured from potential theft or diversion.

                             Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $1,080,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   1,088,635,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,088,635,000

    The Committee recommends $1,088,635,000 for Naval Reactors. 
The Committee commends NNSA for clearly prioritizing work for 
three new projects: refueling of a land-based reactor 
prototype, design of a 40-year reactor plant for new OHIO-class 
ballistic missile submarines, and construction of a new spent 
fuel facility. The Committee understands that the land-based 
prototype is the highest priority because it must be refueled 
starting in 2018 to demonstrate critical technologies in 
support of the Ohio-class replacement program, maintain vital 
research and testing capabilities, and continue to train 
nuclear operators for the Fleet. The Committee also understands 
that the schedule for designing a new reactor for the Ohio-
class submarines has slipped by 2 years, but the schedule delay 
is consistent with the delay in the Navy's construction 
schedule. The Committee is concerned about construction of a 
new spent fuel facility. The Committee understands that the 
current Naval Reactors Facility at Idaho National Laboratory 
continues to be maintained and operated in a safe and 
environmentally responsible manner, but the existing 
infrastructure and equipment is over 50 years old and does not 
meet current standards or mission requirements. Based on 
projections, the facility will be completed 2 years behind 
schedule. The Committee directs NNSA to assess alternative 
storage solutions and associated costs until the new facility 
is operational to avoid disruptions to the Navy's mission and 
report those alternatives and costs in the fiscal year 2014 
budget submission.

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $410,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     411,279,000
Committee recommendation................................     386,279,000

    The Committee recommends $386,279,000 for the Office of the 
Administrator. Within the funds provided, the Committee 
recommends $55,476,025 to support defense nuclear 
nonproliferation activities. The Committee recommendation takes 
into account the $25,000,000 functional transfer for 
information technology activities out of the Office of the 
Administrator to the Chief Information Officer under Weapons 
Activities to consolidate information technology and cyber 
security efforts.
    The Committee is still concerned with overlap and 
duplication between the NNSA Office of Congressional Affairs, 
DOE's Office of Congressional Affairs, and the DOE Chief 
Financial Officer's External Coordination Office [CFO ExCo]. In 
addition, in November 2011, DOE's Inspector General found that 
NNSA maintains a costly set of distinctly separate overhead and 
indirect cost operations that often duplicated existing DOE 
functions, such as Congressional Affairs, General Counsel, 
Human Resources, and Public Affairs. The Committee directs NNSA 
and DOE to submit a joint assessment to the Committee by 
December 1, 2012 of the costs and benefits of consolidating 
functions with DOE to reduce costs and improve communication 
and program execution to respond to Congressional and Inspector 
General concerns and propose options for implementing changes, 
such as legislative changes.
    The Committee is also concerned that government pay and 
benefits in the Office of the Administrator at a time of pay 
freezes are not matching the rate of pay and benefits increases 
in the General Service pay plan. In general, pay and benefits 
increases in a pay for performance system should not outpace 
the General Service pay plan on average. However, the Committee 
is concerned that the Office of the Administrator's pay for 
performance implementation outpaces the General Service pay 
plan on average. The Committee directs the Office of the 
Administrator to work with the Office of Personnel Management 
to implement a pay for performance system that is consistent 
with the General Service pay plan and notify the Committee of 
any changes that affect funding for the Office of the 
Administrator.
    The Committee is also troubled by NNSA's distribution of 
full-time equivalents [FTEs] within the Office of the 
Administrator. For example, more FTEs are dedicated to external 
affairs than counterterrorism, which does not seem to be 
consistent with the mission priorities of the agency. The 
Committee directs NNSA to provide a clear explanation of how it 
determines its FTE distribution in the next budget 
justification.

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $5,023,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   5,009,001,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,063,987,000

    The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Cleanup is $5,063,987,000. In addition, the Committee 
recommends use of prior year balances in the amount of 
$22,123,000 for a total budget of $5,086,110,000. Within the 
total provided, the Department is directed to fund the 
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program.
    Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2013, the 
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between 
operating expense funded projects within the controls listed 
below using guidance contained in the Department's budget 
execution manual (DOE M 135.1-1A, chapter IV). All capital 
construction line item projects remain separate controls from 
the operating projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the 
House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all 
reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the 
Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of 
congressional response. The Committee recommends the following 
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2012:
  --Closure Sites;
  --Hanford Site;
  --Idaho National Laboratory;
  --NNSA Sites;
  --Oak Ridge Reservation;
  --Office of River Protection;
  --Savannah River Site;
  --Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
  --Program Direction;
  --Program Support;
  --Technology Development and Deployment;
  --Safeguards and Security; and
  --All Capital Construction Line Items, regardless of site.
    Internal Reprogramming Authority.--The new reprogramming 
control points above obviates, in most cases, the need for 
internal reprogramming authority. However, at the few sites to 
which the internal reprogramming statute still applies, 
Environmental Management site managers may transfer up to 
$5,000,000, one time, between accounts listed above to reduce 
health and safety risks, gain cost savings, or complete 
projects, as long as a program or project is not increased or 
decreased by more than $5,000,000 in total during the fiscal 
year.
    The reprogramming authority--either formal or internal--may 
not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding 
levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased 
by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on 
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 
30 days after the use of the internal reprogramming authority.
    Closure Sites.--The Committee recommends $1,990,000 for 
Closure Sites activities.
    Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $975,423,000 for 
Richland Operations. The Committee is aware that the B Reactor 
has been identified as a National Historic Landmark and the 
Department of Energy has stated that the intent is preserving 
the reactor for public access. To ensure this intent is 
accomplished, the Committee believes that it is appropriate to 
use cleanup dollars for the maintenance and public safety 
efforts at the B Reactor. Funding for the Hazardous Materials 
Management and Emergency Response facilities are provided for 
within available funds.
    Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends 
$399,607,000 for Idaho National Laboratory.
    NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $334,268,000 for NNSA 
sites.
    Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends 
$213,495,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation.
    Building 3019.--The Committee recommends $37,000,000 for 
the cleanup of Building 3019. This project will result in 
saving some $5,000,000 in annual security costs at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory once complete. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide an updated plan within 60 days of 
enactment of this act that keeps the project on a 5-year 
schedule.
    Oak Ridge Reservation Mercury Cleanup.--Remediation of 
mercury contamination at Oak Ridge Reservation from work 
performed at the Y-12 site during the Cold War is a high 
priority for the Environmental Management program. While DOE 
has taken some initial efforts to contain mercury, the 
Committee believes a more aggressive effort is warranted. The 
Committee recommends $25,000,000 for additional steps to 
contain mercury and limit discharges into the surface water at 
Oak Ridge. Mercury remediation will be a long-term effort 
requiring significant investments, including demolition and 
decontamination of 4 buildings. The Committee directs the 
Department to submit within 60 days of enactment of this Act a 
comprehensive plan for mercury remediation at Oak Ridge, 
including costs and schedule.
    Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommends 
$1,172,113,000 for the Office of River Protection.
    Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends 
$1,181,516,000 for the Savannah River site.
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.--The Committee recommends 
$208,896,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $323,504,000 
for program direction.
    Program Support.--The Committee recommends $18,279,000 for 
program support.
    Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends 
$237,019,000 for safeguards and security.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
recommends $20,000,000 for technology development and 
deployment.

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $823,364,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     735,702,000
Committee recommendation................................     735,702,000

    The Committee recommendation is $735,702,000. The Committee 
recognizes that the decrease relative to fiscal year 2012 
reflects the transfer of funding related to safeguards and 
security of the Idaho National Laboratory from Other Defense 
Activities to the Nuclear Energy appropriations account.
    Health, Safety and Security.--The Committee recommends 
$245,500,000 as requested. Within these funds, the Committee 
recommends $4,405,000, which is the same as fiscal year 2012 
enacted levels, for domestic health research activities, of 
which $1,500,000 shall be used to support the continuation of 
the Illness and Injury Surveillance program. The Committee 
supports the Illness and Injury Surveillance program because it 
is the only active surveillance program across DOE that 
monitors the potential health effects of workers at DOE and 
NNSA sites and currently monitors the health of about 79,000 
contract and Federal workers.
    Specialized Security Activities.--The Committee recommends 
$188,619,000 as requested.
    Office of Legacy Management.--The Committee recommends 
$177,946,000 as requested.
    Defense-Related Administrative Support.--The Committee 
recommends $118,836,000 as requested.
    Office of Hearings and Appeals.--The Committee recommends 
$4,801,000 as requested.

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS


                    Bonneville Power Administration

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific 
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000-square-
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects 
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating 
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets 
surplus power with Canada and California. The Committee 
recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal 
year 2013.
    The Committee is aware of the Secretary of Energy's March 
16, 2012, memorandum directed to the Administrators of the 
Power Marketing Administrations, and understands that with 
respect to the Bonneville Power Administration [BPA], the BPA 
is currently meeting those directorates. The Committee is 
disappointed that the proposals in this memorandum were 
developed without any consultation with Members of Congress 
representing the BPA service area or any public process with 
BPA ratepayers. The Committee directs that the Secretary of 
Energy or his designee to consult with appropriate Members of 
Congress and conduct a public process in advance of use of any 
funds appropriated to the Department of Energy under this act 
to direct or implement proposals stemming from the Department 
of Energy March 16, 2012, memorandum that would impact the 
Bonneville Power Administration.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

Appropriations, 2012....................................................
Budget estimate, 2013...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

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

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $11,892,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      11,892,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,892,000

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

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

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $95,968,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      96,130,000
Committee recommendation................................      96,130,000

    For the Western Area Power Administration, the Committee 
recommends a net appropriation of $96,130,000, the same as the 
budget request. The Western Area Power Administration is 
encouraged to continue its efforts to build a more secure and 
sustainable electricity grid by pioneering programs and 
activities to maximize the use and integration of energy 
efficiency, renewable energy, distributed generation, and 
demand response, as well as improving transmission access 
between regions and interconnections.
    The Committee notes that some of the Administration's 
efforts in this area may have impacts on costs to consumers. 
The Committee recommends the Administration work with customers 
to address relevant concerns and inform Congress of major 
initiatives.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

Appropriations, 2012....................................        $220,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................         220,000
Committee recommendation................................         220,000

    For the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, 
the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $220,000 the 
same as the request.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $304,600,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     304,600,000
Committee recommendation................................     304,600,000

                            REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2012....................................   -$304,600,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................    -304,600,000
Committee recommendation................................    -304,600,000


                                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            Committee recommendation
                                                                                                          Committee               compared to--
                                                                         Enacted      Budget estimate   recommendation ---------------------------------
                                                                                                                            Enacted      Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          ENERGY PROGRAMS
 
               ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D:
    Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies............................         104,000           80,000          104,000   ...............         +24,000
    Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D............................         200,000          270,000          200,000   ...............         -70,000
    Solar energy...................................................         290,000          310,000          293,000           +3,000          -17,000
    Wind energy....................................................          93,593           95,000           95,000           +1,407   ...............
    Geothermal technology..........................................          38,000           65,000           65,000          +27,000   ...............
    Water power....................................................          59,000           20,000           59,000   ...............         +39,000
    Vehicle technologies...........................................         330,000          420,000          330,000   ...............         -90,000
    Building technologies..........................................         220,000          310,000          220,000   ...............         -90,000
    Advanced manufacturing.........................................  ...............         290,000          168,635         +168,635         -121,365
    Industrial technologies........................................         116,000   ...............  ...............        -116,000   ...............
    Federal energy management program..............................          30,000           32,000           30,000   ...............          -2,000
    Facilities and infrastructure:
        National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL]................          26,407           26,400           26,400               -7   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Facilities and infrastructure..................          26,407           26,400           26,400               -7   ...............
 
    Program direction..............................................         165,000          164,700          164,700             -300   ...............
    Strategic programs.............................................          25,000           58,900           25,000   ...............         -33,900
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D.......       1,697,000        2,142,000        1,780,735          +83,735         -361,265
 
Weatherization and intragovernmental:
    Weatherization:
        Weatherization assistance..................................          65,000          135,700          141,700          +76,700           +6,000
        Training and technical assistance..........................           3,000            3,300            3,300             +300   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................          68,000          139,000          145,000          +77,000           +6,000
 
    Other:
        State energy program grants................................          50,000           49,000           50,000   ...............          +1,000
        Tribal energy activities...................................          10,000            7,000           10,000   ...............          +3,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................          60,000           56,000           60,000   ...............          +4,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Weatherization and intragovernmental...........         128,000          195,000          199,000          +71,000           +4,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy.........       1,825,000        2,337,000        1,985,735         +160,735         -351,265
 
Rescission.........................................................          -9,909          -69,667          -69,667          -59,758   ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.........................          -5,453   ...............  ...............          +5,453   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.................       1,809,638        2,267,333        1,916,068         +106,430         -351,265
                                                                    ====================================================================================
            ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
 
Research and development:
    Electricity systems hub........................................  ...............          20,000           20,000          +20,000   ...............
    Clean-energy transmission and reliability......................          25,490           24,000           24,000           -1,490   ...............
    Smart grid research and development............................          24,000           14,400           14,400           -9,600   ...............
    Energy storage.................................................          20,000           15,000           15,000           -5,000   ...............
    Cyber security for energy delivery systems.....................          30,000           30,000           30,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................          99,490          103,400          103,400           +3,910   ...............
 
Permitting, siting, and analysis...................................           7,000            6,000            6,000           -1,000   ...............
Infrastructure security and energy restoration.....................           6,000            6,000            6,000   ...............  ...............
Program direction..................................................          27,010           27,615           27,615             +605   ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.........................            -397   ...............  ...............            +397   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY...........         139,103          143,015          143,015           +3,912   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                           NUCLEAR ENERGY
 
Research and development:
    Nuclear energy-enabling technologies...........................          74,880           65,318           65,318           -9,562   ...............
    Integrated university program..................................           5,000   ...............  ...............          -5,000   ...............
    Small modular reactor licensing technical support..............          67,000           65,000           65,000           -2,000   ...............
    Reactor concepts RD&D..........................................         115,544           73,674           73,674          -41,870   ...............
    Fuel-cycle research and development............................         187,351          175,438          193,138           +5,787          +17,700
    International nuclear energy cooperation.......................           3,000            3,000            3,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         452,775          382,430          400,130          -52,645          +17,700
 
Infrastructure:
    Radiological facilities management:
        Space and defense infrastructure...........................          64,902           46,000           61,000           -3,902          +15,000
        Research reactor infrastructure............................           4,986            5,000            5,000              +14   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................          69,888           51,000           66,000           -3,888          +15,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
    INL facilities management:
        INL operations and infrastructure..........................         155,000          144,220          144,220          -10,780   ...............
        Construction:
            13-D-905 RHLLW disposal project........................  ...............           6,280            6,280           +6,280   ...............
            13-E-200 Advanced PIE capabilities.....................  ...............           1,500            1,500           +1,500   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal.............................................  ...............           7,780            7,780           +7,780   ...............
 
    Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.........................  ...............          95,000           93,000          +93,000           -2,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Infrastructure.....................................         224,888          298,000          311,000          +86,112          +13,000
 
Program direction..................................................          91,000           90,015           92,015           +1,015           +2,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nuclear energy.....................................         768,663          770,445          803,145          +34,482          +32,700
 
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.........................          -3,272   ...............  ...............          +3,272   ...............
Use of prior years balances........................................  ...............  ...............         -17,700          -17,700          -17,700
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY........................................         765,391          770,445          785,445          +20,054          +15,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
               FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
 
CCS and power systems:
    Carbon capture.................................................          68,938           60,438           60,438           -8,500   ...............
    Carbon storage.................................................         115,477           95,477           95,477          -20,000   ...............
    Advanced energy systems........................................         100,000           55,193           80,946          -19,054          +25,753
    Cross-cutting research.........................................          49,163           29,750           29,750          -19,413   ...............
    NETL coal research and development.............................          35,031           35,011           35,011              -20   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, CCS and power systems..............................         368,609          275,869          301,622          -66,987          +25,753
 
Natural gas technologies...........................................          15,000           17,000           22,000           +7,000           +5,000
Unconventional fossil energy technologies from petroleum--oil                 5,000   ...............           5,000   ...............          +5,000
 technologies......................................................
Program direction..................................................         120,000          115,753          120,000   ...............          +4,247
Plant and capital equipment........................................          16,794           13,294           13,294           -3,500   ...............
Fossil energy environmental restoration............................           7,897            5,897            5,897           -2,000   ...............
Special recruitment programs.......................................             700              700              700   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Fossil energy research and development.............         534,000          428,513          468,513          -65,487          +40,000
 
Use of prior year balances.........................................  ...............          -7,938           -7,938           -7,938   ...............
Rescission.........................................................        -187,000   ...............  ...............        +187,000   ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.........................            -297   ...............  ...............            +297   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................         346,703          420,575          460,575         +113,872          +40,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves.............................          14,909           14,909           14,909   ...............  ...............
Elk Hills School Lands Fund........................................  ...............          15,580           15,580          +15,580   ...............
Strategic Petroleum Reserve........................................         192,704          195,609          195,609           +2,905   ...............
 
                       SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT
 
Rescission.........................................................        -500,000         -291,000   ...............        +500,000         +291,000
 
                 NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE
 
Northeast home heating oil reserve.................................          10,119           10,119           10,119   ...............  ...............
Rescission.........................................................        -100,000           -6,000           -6,000          +94,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE....................         -89,881            4,119            4,119          +94,000   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Energy Information Administration..................................         105,000          116,365          116,365          +11,365   ...............
 
                 NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
 
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA)...............................           2,703            2,704            2,704               +1   ...............
Gaseous diffusion plants...........................................         100,588           90,109           90,109          -10,479   ...............
Small sites........................................................          67,430           57,831           87,831          +20,401          +30,000
West Valley Demonstration Project..................................          65,000           47,862           47,862          -17,138   ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.........................            -415   ...............  ...............            +415   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.....................         235,306          198,506          228,506           -6,800          +30,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
    URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND
 
Oak Ridge..........................................................         200,856          207,798          207,798           +6,942   ...............
Paducah............................................................          81,807           90,142           90,142           +8,335   ...............
Portsmouth.........................................................         190,267          127,038          127,038          -63,229   ...............
Pension and community and regulatory support.......................  ...............          17,515           17,515          +17,515   ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze....................................            -750   ...............  ...............            +750   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING         472,180          442,493          442,493          -29,687   ...............
       FUND/URANIUM INVENTORY CLEANUP..............................
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                              SCIENCE
 
Advanced scientific computing research.............................         442,000          455,593          455,593          +13,593   ...............
 
Basic energy sciences:
    Research.......................................................       1,542,600        1,688,889        1,601,388          +58,788          -87,501
    Construction:
        07-SC-06 Project engineering and design [PED] National              151,400           47,203           47,203         -104,197   ...............
         Synchrotron light source II [NSLS-II].....................
        13-SC-10 LINAC coherent light source, II [SLAC]............  ...............          63,500           63,500          +63,500   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................         151,400          110,703          110,703          -40,697   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Basic energy sciences..........................       1,694,000        1,799,592        1,712,091          +18,091          -87,501
 
Biological and environmental research..............................         611,823          625,347          625,347          +13,524   ...............
Fusion energy sciences program.....................................         402,177          398,324          398,324           -3,853   ...............
 
High-energy physics:
    Research.......................................................         763,700          756,521          745,521          -18,179          -11,000
    Construction:
        11-SC-40 Project engineering and design [PED] long baseline           4,000   ...............          16,000          +12,000          +16,000
         neutrino experiment, FNAL.................................
        11-SC-41 Project engineering and design [PED] muon to                24,000           20,000           20,000           -4,000   ...............
         electron conversion experiment, FNAL......................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................          28,000           20,000           36,000           +8,000          +16,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, High-energy physics............................         791,700          776,521          781,521          -10,179           +5,000
 
Nuclear physics:
    Operations and maintenance.....................................         500,000          486,366          499,366             -634          +13,000
    Construction:
        06-SC-01 Project engineering and design [PED] 12 GeV                 50,000           40,572           40,572           -9,428   ...............
         continuous electron beam accelerator facility upgrade,
         Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility (was
         project 07-SC-001), Newport News,  Virginia...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Nuclear physics..............................         550,000          526,938          539,938          -10,062          +13,000
 
Workforce development for teachers and scientists..................          18,500           14,500           14,500           -4,000   ...............
 
Science laboratories infrastructure:
    Infrastructure support:
        Payment in lieu of taxes...................................           1,385            1,385            1,385   ...............  ...............
        Facilities and infrastructure..............................  ...............             900              900             +900   ...............
        Oak Ridge landlord.........................................           5,493            5,934            5,934             +441   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................           6,878            8,219            8,219           +1,341   ...............
 
    Construction:
        13-SC-70 utilities upgrade, FINAL..........................  ...............           2,500            2,500           +2,500   ...............
        13-SC-71 Utility infrastructure modernization at TJNAF.....  ...............           2,500            2,500           +2,500   ...............
        12-SC-70 Science and user support building, SLAC...........          12,086           21,629           21,629           +9,543   ...............
        10-SC-70 Research support building and infrastructure                12,024           36,382           36,382          +24,358   ...............
         modernization, SLAC.......................................
        10-SC-71 Energy sciences building, ANL.....................          40,000           32,030           32,030           -7,970   ...............
        10-SC-72 Renovate science laboratory, phase II, BNL........          15,500           14,530           14,530             -970   ...............
        09-SC-72 Seismic life-safety, modernization and replacement          12,975   ...............  ...............         -12,975   ...............
         of general purpose buildings, phase 2, PED/Construction,
         LBNL......................................................
        09-SC-74, Technology and engineering development facilities          12,337   ...............  ...............         -12,337   ...............
         PED, TJNAF................................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................         104,922          109,571          109,571           +4,649   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure............         111,800          117,790          117,790           +5,990   ...............
 
Safeguards and security............................................          82,000           84,000           83,000           +1,000           -1,000
Science program direction..........................................         185,000          202,551          190,000           +5,000          -12,551
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science............................................       4,889,000        5,001,156        4,918,104          +29,104          -83,052
 
Use of prior year balances.........................................  ...............          -9,104           -9,104           -9,104   ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.........................         -15,366   ...............  ...............         +15,366   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SCIENCE...............................................       4,873,634        4,992,052        4,909,000          +35,366          -83,052
                                                                    ====================================================================================
              ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY
 
ARPA-E projects....................................................         255,000          325,000          287,000          +32,000          -38,000
Program direction..................................................          20,000           25,000           25,000           +5,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY..............         275,000          350,000          312,000          +37,000          -38,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
       TITLE 17--INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Administrative expenses............................................          38,000           38,000           38,000   ...............  ...............
Offsetting collection..............................................         -38,000          -38,000          -38,000   ...............  ...............
 
      ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM
 
Administrative expenses............................................           6,000            9,000            9,000           +3,000   ...............
 
                    DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
 
Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary:
            Program direction......................................           5,030            4,986            4,986              -44   ...............
        Chief Financial Officer....................................          53,204           51,043           51,043           -2,161   ...............
        Management.................................................          62,693           53,257           43,257          -19,436          -10,000
        Human capital management...................................          23,089           23,286           23,286             +197   ...............
        Chief Information Officer..................................          36,615           36,243           36,243             -372   ...............
        Congressional and intergovernmental affairs:
            Program direction......................................           4,690            4,076            4,076             -614   ...............
        Economic impact and diversity..............................           5,660            6,447            6,447             +787   ...............
        General counsel............................................          33,053           33,256           33,256             +203   ...............
        Policy and international affairs...........................          20,518           20,781           20,781             +263   ...............
        Public affairs.............................................           3,801            3,310            3,310             -491   ...............
        Office of Indian energy policy and programs................           2,000            2,506            2,506             +506   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and expenses..........................         250,353          239,191          229,191          -21,162          -10,000
 
    Program support:
        Minority economic impact...................................           1,813            1,059            1,059             -754   ...............
        Policy analysis and system studies.........................             441              400              400              -41   ...............
        Environmental policy studies...............................             520              500              500              -20   ...............
        Climate change technology program (program support)........           5,482            5,600            5,600             +118   ...............
        Cybersecurity and secure communications....................          21,934           33,576           33,576          +11,642   ...............
        Corporate IT program support [CIO].........................          27,379           20,756           20,756           -6,623   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Program support................................          57,569           61,891           61,891           +4,322   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Administrative operations......................         307,922          301,082          291,082          -16,840          -10,000
 
    Cost of work for others........................................          48,537           48,537           48,537   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental administration........................         356,459          349,619          339,619          -16,840          -10,000
 
Funding from other defense activities..............................        -118,836         -118,836         -118,836   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental administration (gross)...................         237,623          230,783          220,783          -16,840          -10,000
 
Miscellaneous revenues.............................................        -111,623         -108,188         -108,188           +3,435   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net).....................         126,000          122,595          112,595          -13,405          -10,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL....................................          42,000           43,468           43,468           +1,468   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS.......................................       8,813,687        9,815,064        9,708,747         +895,060         -106,317
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
 
              NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 
                         WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
 
Directed stockpile work:
    Life extension program:
        B61 Life extension program.................................         223,562          369,000          339,000         +115,438          -30,000
        W76 Life extension program.................................         257,035          174,931          204,931          -52,104          +30,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................         480,597          543,931          543,931          +63,334   ...............
 
    Stockpile systems:
        B61 Stockpile systems......................................          72,396           72,364           72,364              -32   ...............
        W76 Stockpile systems......................................          63,383           65,445           65,445           +2,062   ...............
        W78 Stockpile systems......................................          99,518          139,207          139,207          +39,689   ...............
        W80 Stockpile systems......................................          44,444           46,540           46,540           +2,096   ...............
        B83 Stockpile systems......................................          48,215           57,947           57,947           +9,732   ...............
        W87 Stockpile systems......................................          83,943           85,689           85,689           +1,746   ...............
        W88 Stockpile systems......................................          75,728          123,217          123,217          +47,489   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................         487,627          590,409          590,409         +102,782   ...............
 
    Weapons dismantlement and disposition:
        Operations and maintenance.................................          56,770           51,265           51,265           -5,505   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
    Stockpile services:
        Production support.........................................         330,000          365,405          347,405          +17,405          -18,000
        Research and development support...........................          30,264           28,103           28,103           -2,161   ...............
        R & D certification and safety.............................         165,569          191,632          199,632          +34,063           +8,000
        Management, technology, and production.....................         188,700          175,844          175,844          -12,856   ...............
        Plutonium sustainment......................................         140,000          141,685          141,685           +1,685   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................         854,533          902,669          892,669          +38,136          -10,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Directed stockpile work........................       1,879,527        2,088,274        2,078,274         +198,747          -10,000
 
Campaigns:
    Science campaign:
        Advanced certification.....................................          40,000           44,104           44,104           +4,104   ...............
        Primary assessment technologies............................          86,055           94,000           94,000           +7,945   ...............
        Dynamic materials properties...............................          96,984           97,000           97,000              +16   ...............
        Advanced radiography.......................................          26,000           30,000           30,000           +4,000   ...............
        Secondary assessment technologies..........................          85,000           85,000           85,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................         334,039          350,104          350,104          +16,065   ...............
 
    Engineering campaign:
        Enhanced surety............................................          41,696           46,421           46,421           +4,725   ...............
        Weapons system engineering assessment technology...........          15,663           18,983           18,983           +3,320   ...............
        Nuclear survivability......................................          19,545           21,788           21,788           +2,243   ...............
        Enhanced surveillance......................................          66,174           63,379           63,379           -2,795   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................         143,078          150,571          150,571           +7,493   ...............
 
    Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high-yield campaign:
        Ignition...................................................         109,888           84,172           84,172          -25,716   ...............
        Diagnostics, cryogenics, and experimental support..........          86,259           81,942           81,942           -4,317   ...............
        Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion...................           4,997            6,044            6,044           +1,047   ...............
        Joint program in high-energy density laboratory plasmas....           9,100            8,334            8,334             -766   ...............
        Facility operations and target production..................         266,030          264,691          264,691           -1,339   ...............
        Support of other stockpile programs........................  ...............          14,817           14,817          +14,817   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................         476,274          460,000          460,000          -16,274   ...............
 
Advanced simulation and computing..................................         620,000          600,000          620,000   ...............         +20,000
    Readiness campaign:
        Nonnuclear readiness.......................................          65,000           64,681           64,681             -319   ...............
        Tritium readiness..........................................          63,591           65,414           65,414           +1,823   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................         128,591          130,095          130,095           +1,504   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Campaigns......................................       1,701,982        1,690,770        1,710,770           +8,788          +20,000
 
Readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF]:
    Operations of facilities:
        Kansas City Plant..........................................         156,217          163,602          163,602           +7,385   ...............
        Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.....................          83,990           89,048           89,048           +5,058   ...............
        Los Alamos National Laboratory.............................         318,526          335,978          335,978          +17,452   ...............
        Nevada Test Site...........................................          97,559          115,697          115,697          +18,138   ...............
        Pantex.....................................................         164,848          172,020          172,020           +7,172   ...............
        Sandia National Laboratory.................................         120,708          167,384          167,384          +46,676   ...............
        Savannah River Site........................................          97,767          120,577          120,577          +22,810   ...............
        Y-12 Productions Plant.....................................         246,001          255,097          255,097           +9,096   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................................................       1,285,616        1,419,403        1,419,403         +133,787   ...............
 
    Program readiness..............................................          74,180   ...............  ...............         -74,180   ...............
    Material recycle and recovery..................................          78,000   ...............  ...............         -78,000   ...............
    Containers.....................................................          28,979   ...............  ...............         -28,979   ...............
    Storage........................................................          31,272   ...............  ...............         -31,272   ...............
    Science, technology, and engineering capability support........  ...............         166,945          166,945         +166,945   ...............
    Nuclear operations capability support..........................  ...............         203,346          203,346         +203,346   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities.........       1,498,047        1,789,694        1,789,694         +291,647   ...............
 
    Construction:
        13-D-301 Electrical infrastructure upgrades, LANL/LLNL.....  ...............          23,000           23,000          +23,000   ...............
        12-D-301 TRU waste facility project, LANL..................           9,881           24,204           24,204          +14,323   ...............
        11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project II, LANL...............          10,000            8,889            8,889           -1,111   ...............
        10-D-501 Nuclear facilities risk reduction Y-12 National             35,387           17,909           17,909          -17,478   ...............
         security complex, Oakridge, Tennessee.....................
        09-D-404, Test capabilities revitalization II, Sandia                25,168           11,332           11,332          -13,836   ...............
         National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New  Mexico.............
        08-D-802 High-explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant,              66,960           24,800           24,800          -42,160   ...............
         Amarillo, Texas...........................................
        07-D-140 Project engineering and design [PED], various                3,518   ...............  ...............          -3,518   ...............
         locations.................................................
        06-D-141 Project engineering and design [PED], Y-12 Uranium         160,194          340,000          340,000         +179,806   ...............
         Processing Facility, Oak Ridge,  Tennessee................
        04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, Los          200,000   ...............  ...............        -200,000   ...............
         Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico........
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal...............................................         511,108          450,134          450,134          -60,974   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities...       2,009,155        2,239,828        2,239,828         +230,673   ...............
 
Secure transportation asset:
    Operations and equipment.......................................         145,274          114,965          114,965          -30,309   ...............
    Program direction..............................................          98,002          104,396          104,396           +6,394   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         243,276          219,361          219,361          -23,915   ...............
 
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response.........................         222,147          247,552          247,552          +25,405   ...............
Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program.............          96,380   ...............  ...............         -96,380   ...............
Site stewardship...................................................          78,680           90,001           88,249           +9,569           -1,752
    Safeguards and security:
        Defense nuclear security...................................         686,252          643,285          643,285          -42,967   ...............
        Construction:
            08-D-701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los               11,752   ...............  ...............         -11,752   ...............
             Alamos National Laboratory............................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Defense nuclear security.................         698,004          643,285          643,285          -54,719   ...............
 
    Cybersecurity..................................................         126,614   ...............  ...............        -126,614   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Safeguards and security...............................         824,618          643,285          643,285         -181,333   ...............
 
    NNSA CIO activities............................................  ...............         155,022          155,022         +155,022   ...............
    Legacy contractor pensions.....................................         168,232          185,000          185,000          +16,768   ...............
    National security applications.................................          10,000           18,248           10,000   ...............          -8,248
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................         -19,877   ...............  ...............         +19,877   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES....................................       7,214,120        7,577,341        7,577,341         +363,221   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
 
Nonproliferation and verification, R&D.............................         356,150          548,186          418,186          +62,036         -130,000
Nonproliferation and international security........................         155,305          150,119          150,119           -5,186   ...............
International nuclear materials protection and cooperation.........         571,639          311,000          368,000         -203,639          +57,000
 
Fissile materials disposition:
    U.S. plutonium disposition.....................................         205,632          498,979          498,979         +293,347   ...............
    U.S. uranium disposition.......................................          26,000           29,736           29,736           +3,736   ...............
    Construction:
        MOX fuel fabrication facilities:
            99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility,                 435,172          388,802          388,802          -46,370   ...............
             Savannah River, South Carolina........................
            99-D-141-02 Waste solidification building, Savannah              17,582   ...............  ...............         -17,582   ...............
             River, South Carolina.................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Construction.............................         452,754          388,802          388,802          -63,952   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, U.S. fissle materials disposition........         684,386          917,517          917,517         +233,131   ...............
 
    Russian surplus materials disposition..........................           1,000            3,788            3,788           +2,788   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Fissile materials disposition.........................         685,386          921,305          921,305         +235,919   ...............
 
Global threat reduction initiative.................................         500,000          466,021          539,021          +39,021          +73,000
Legacy contractor pensions.........................................          55,823           62,000           62,000           +6,177   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...................       2,324,303        2,458,631        2,458,631         +134,328   ...............
 
Rescission.........................................................         -21,000   ...............  ...............         +21,000   ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.........................          -7,423   ...............  ...............          +7,423   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION......................       2,295,880        2,458,631        2,458,631         +162,751   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                           NAVAL REACTORS
 
Naval reactors development.........................................         421,000          418,072          418,072           -2,928   ...............
OHIO replacement reactor systems development.......................         121,300           89,700           89,700          -31,600   ...............
S8G Prototype refueling............................................          99,500          121,100          121,100          +21,600   ...............
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure.......................         358,300          366,961          366,961           +8,661   ...............
 
Construction:
    13-D-905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL..........  ...............           8,890            8,890           +8,890   ...............
    13-D-904 KS Radiological work and storage building, KSO........  ...............           2,000            2,000           +2,000   ...............
    13-D-903, KS prototype staff building, KSO.....................  ...............          14,000           14,000          +14,000   ...............
    10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL..............................             100           19,000           19,000          +18,900   ...............
    10-D-904, NRF infrastructure upgrades, Idaho...................          12,000   ...............  ...............         -12,000   ...............
    08-D-190, Project engineering and design, Expended Core                  27,800            5,700            5,700          -22,100   ...............
     Facility M-290 recovering discharge station, Naval Reactor
     Facility, Idaho...............................................
    07-D-190, Materials research tech complex [MRTC]...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Construction.......................................          39,900           49,590           49,590           +9,690   ...............
 
Program direction..................................................          40,000           43,212           43,212           +3,212   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS........................................       1,080,000        1,088,635        1,088,635           +8,635   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Office of the Administrator........................................         410,000          411,279          386,279          -23,721          -25,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION..............      11,000,000       11,535,886       11,510,886         +510,886          -25,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
 
Closure sites......................................................           5,375            1,990            1,990           -3,385   ...............
 
Hanford Site:
    Central plateau remediation....................................         546,890          558,820          570,920          +24,030          +12,100
    River corridor and other cleanup operations....................         386,822          389,347          389,347           +2,525   ...............
    Richland community and regulatory support......................          19,540           15,156           15,156           -4,384   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Hanford Site..........................................         953,252          963,323          975,423          +22,171          +12,100
 
Idaho National Laboratory:
    Idaho cleanup and waste disposition............................         382,769          396,607          396,607          +13,838   ...............
    Idaho community and regulatory support.........................           4,100            3,000            3,000           -1,100   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Idaho National Laboratory.............................         386,869          399,607          399,607          +12,738   ...............
 
NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites....................................         282,393          334,268          334,268          +51,875   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.......................         282,393          334,268          334,268          +51,875   ...............
 
Oak Ridge Reservation:
    Building 3019..................................................          37,000   ...............  ...............         -37,000   ...............
    OR Nuclear facility D&D........................................          69,100           67,525           99,525          +30,425          +32,000
    OR cleanup and disposition.....................................          87,000          109,470          109,470          +22,470   ...............
    OR reservation community and regulatory support................           6,409            4,500            4,500           -1,909   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Oak Ridge Reservation.................................         199,509          181,495          213,495          +13,986          +32,000
 
Office of River Protection:
    Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant:
    01-D-416 A-E/ORP-0060/Major construction.......................  ...............         690,000          690,000         +690,000   ...............
    Waste treatment and immobilization plant 01-D-16 A-D...........         430,000   ...............  ...............        -430,000   ...............
    Waste treatment and immobilization plant 01-D-16 E.............         310,000   ...............  ...............        -310,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant...........         740,000          690,000          690,000          -50,000   ...............
 
    Tank Farm activities:
        Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition........         445,000          482,113          482,113          +37,113   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Office of River Protection........................       1,185,000        1,172,113        1,172,113          -12,887   ...............
 
Savannah River site:
    Savannah River community and regulatory support................           9,584           16,584           16,584           +7,000   ...............
    Savannah River site risk management operations.................         343,586          444,089          444,089         +100,503   ...............
    Radioactive liquid tank waste:
        Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition         667,081          698,294          698,294          +31,213   ...............
    Construction:
        05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River....         170,071           22,549           22,549         -147,522   ...............
        PE&D Glass Waste Storage Building #3.......................           3,500   ...............  ...............          -3,500   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Radioactive liquid tank waste..................         840,652          720,843          720,843         -119,809   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Savannah River site...............................       1,193,822        1,181,516        1,181,516          -12,306   ...............
 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant........................................         215,134          198,010          208,896           -6,238          +10,886
Program direction..................................................         321,628          323,504          323,504           +1,876   ...............
Program support....................................................          20,380           18,279           18,279           -2,101   ...............
Safeguards and Security............................................         252,019          237,019          237,019          -15,000   ...............
Technology development.............................................          11,000           20,000           20,000           +9,000   ...............
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution...........................  ...............         463,000   ...............  ...............        -463,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense Environmental Clean up.....................       5,026,381        5,494,124        5,086,110          +59,729         -408,014
 
Use of unobligated balances........................................  ...............         -10,000          -10,000          -10,000   ...............
Use of prior year balances.........................................          -3,381          -12,123          -12,123           -8,742   ...............
Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.........................         -20,050   ...............  ...............         +20,050   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP........................       5,002,950        5,472,001        5,063,987          +61,037         -408,014
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                      OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
 
Health, safety, and security:
    Health, safety, and security...................................         335,436          139,325          139,325         -196,111   ...............
    Program direction..............................................         102,000          106,175          106,175           +4,175   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Health, safety, and security..........................         437,436          245,500          245,500         -191,936   ...............
 
Specialized security activities....................................  ...............         188,619          188,619         +188,619   ...............
 
Office of Legacy Management:
    Legacy management..............................................         157,514          164,477          164,477           +6,963   ...............
    Program direction..............................................          12,086           13,469           13,469           +1,383   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Legacy Management...........................         169,600          177,946          177,946           +8,346   ...............
 
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.............................          93,350   ...............  ...............         -93,350   ...............
Defense-related administrative support.............................         118,836          118,836          118,836   ...............  ...............
Office of hearings and appeals.....................................           4,142            4,801            4,801             +659   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES..............................         823,364          735,702          735,702          -87,662   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES......................      16,826,314       17,743,589       17,310,575         +484,261         -433,014
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                 POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS\1\
 
                 SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
 
    Operation and maintenance:
        Purchase power and wheeling................................         114,870          103,170          103,170          -11,700   ...............
        Program direction..........................................           8,428            8,732            8,732             +304   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Operation and maintenance......................         123,298          111,902          111,902          -11,396   ...............
 
    Less alternative financing [PPW]...............................         -14,708          -15,474          -15,474             -766   ...............
    Offsetting collections.........................................        -108,590          -96,428          -96,428          +12,162   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.....................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                 SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
 
    Operation and maintenance:
        Operating expenses.........................................          14,346           11,505           11,505           -2,841   ...............
        Purchase power and wheeling................................          50,000           51,000           51,000           +1,000   ...............
        Program direction..........................................          31,889           28,593           28,593           -3,296   ...............
        Construction...............................................          10,772            7,931            7,931           -2,841   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Operation and maintenance......................         107,007           99,029           99,029           -7,978   ...............
 
    Less alternative financing.....................................         -21,997          -13,829          -13,829           +8,168   ...............
    Offsetting collections.........................................         -73,118          -73,308          -73,308             -190   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION.....................          11,892           11,892           11,892   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                 WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
 
    Operation and maintenance:
        Construction and rehabilitation............................         110,449           83,475           83,475          -26,974   ...............
        Operation and maintenance..................................          72,863           71,855           71,855           -1,008   ...............
        Purchase power and wheeling................................         471,535          422,225          422,225          -49,310   ...............
        Program direction..........................................         205,247          204,227          204,227           -1,020   ...............
        Utah mitigation and conservation...........................           3,375            3,375            3,375   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Operation and maintenance......................         863,469          785,157          785,157          -78,312   ...............
 
    Less alternative financing.....................................        -266,207         -245,280         -245,280          +20,927   ...............
    Offsetting collections (Public Law 108-477, Public Law 109-103)        -306,541         -242,858         -242,858          +63,683   ...............
    Offsetting collections (Public Law 98-381).....................          -4,821           -5,099           -5,099             -278   ...............
    Offsetting collections (for program direction).................        -156,609         -159,703         -159,703           -3,094   ...............
    Offsetting collections (for O&M)...............................         -33,323          -36,087          -36,087           -2,764   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION.....................          95,968           96,130           96,130             +162   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
         FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
 
    Operation and maintenance......................................           4,169            5,555            5,555           +1,386   ...............
    Offsetting collections.........................................          -3,949           -5,335           -5,335           -1,386   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND.....             220              220              220   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS.......................         108,080          108,242          108,242             +162   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
 
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...........................         304,600          304,500          304,500             -100   ...............
    FERC revenues..................................................        -304,600         -304,500         -304,500             +100   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY............................      25,748,081       27,666,895       27,127,564       +1,379,483         -539,331
          (Total amount appropriated)..............................     (26,639,290)     (28,033,562)     (27,203,231)       (+563,941)       (-830,331)
          (Rescissions)............................................       (-891,209)       (-366,667)        (-75,667)       (+815,542)       (+291,000)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                        SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS
 
Energy efficiency and renewable energy.............................       1,809,638        2,267,333        1,916,068         +106,430         -351,265
Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................         139,103          143,015          143,015           +3,912   ...............
Nuclear energy.....................................................         765,391          770,445          785,445          +20,054          +15,000
Fossil energy research and development.............................         346,703          420,575          460,575         +113,872          +40,000
Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves.............................          14,909           14,909           14,909   ...............  ...............
Strategic petroleum reserves.......................................         192,704          195,609          195,609           +2,905   ...............
Elk Hills School Lands Fund........................................  ...............          15,580           15,580          +15,580   ...............
SPR Petroleum Account..............................................        -500,000         -291,000   ...............        +500,000         +291,000
Northeast home heating oil reserve.................................         -89,881            4,119            4,119          +94,000   ...............
Energy Information Administration..................................         105,000          116,365          116,365          +11,365   ...............
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup..................................         235,306          198,506          228,506           -6,800          +30,000
Uranium enrichment D&D fund........................................         472,180          442,493          442,493          -29,687   ...............
Science............................................................       4,873,634        4,992,052        4,909,000          +35,366          -83,052
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy...........................         275,000          350,000          312,000          +37,000          -38,000
Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan program............           6,000            9,000            9,000           +3,000   ...............
Departmental administration........................................         126,000          122,595          112,595          -13,405          -10,000
Office of the Inspector General....................................          42,000           43,468           43,468           +1,468   ...............
 
Atomic energy defense activities:
    National Nuclear Security Administration:
        Weapons activities.........................................       7,214,120        7,577,341        7,577,341         +363,221   ...............
        Defense nuclear nonproliferation...........................       2,295,880        2,458,631        2,458,631         +162,751   ...............
        Naval reactors.............................................       1,080,000        1,088,635        1,088,635           +8,635   ...............
        Office of the Administrator................................         410,000          411,279          386,279          -23,721          -25,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration.......      11,000,000       11,535,886       11,510,886         +510,886          -25,000
 
    Defense environmental cleanup..................................       5,002,950        5,472,001        5,063,987          +61,037         -408,014
    Other defense activities.......................................         823,364          735,702          735,702          -87,662   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities......................      16,826,314       17,743,589       17,310,575         +484,261         -433,014
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Power marketing administrations:\1\
    Southwestern Power Administration..............................          11,892           11,892           11,892   ...............  ...............
    Western Area Power Administration..............................          95,968           96,130           96,130             +162   ...............
    Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund..............             220              220              220   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing Administrations.......................         108,080          108,242          108,242             +162   ...............
 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
    Salaries and expenses..........................................         304,600          304,500          304,500             -100   ...............
    Revenues.......................................................        -304,600         -304,500         -304,500             +100   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy..............      25,748,081       27,666,895       27,127,564       +1,379,483         -539,331
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection
  totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power purchase and wheeling.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The following list of general provisions is recommended by 
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions 
which have been included in previous Energy and Water 
Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
    Section 301. Language is included on unexpended balances.
    Section 302. Language is included specifically authorizing 
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 
2013 Intelligence Authorization Act.
    Section 303. The Committee has included a provision related 
to nuclear safety requirements.
    Section 304. The Committee has included language related to 
independent cost estimates.
    Section 305. Language is included related to the provision 
of uranium.
    Section 306. The Committee has included a provision 
modifying an annual review.
    Section 307. Language is included related to transfer 
authority.
    Section 308. The Committee has included a provision on 
appointments.
    Section 309. The Committee has included a provision on 
hiring.
    Section 310. The Committee has included a provision on 
mandatory funding.
    Section 311. The Committee has included a provision on the 
eligibility for tribal energy activities.
    Section 312. The Committee has included a provision on a 
pilot program related to consolidated storage of spent nuclear 
fuel.
    Section 313. The Committee has included a provision to 
repeal a reporting requirement.
    Section 314. The Committee has included a provision 
repealing a reporting requirement.
    Section 315. The Committee has included a provision 
amending a reporting requirement.

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $68,263,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      64,850,000
Committee recommendation................................      64,850,000

    Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission 
[ARC] is an economic development agency composed of 13 
Appalachian States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the 
President. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends 
$64,850,000 for the ARC.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $29,130,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      29,415,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,425,000

    The Committee recommends $27,425,000 for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Committee supports the 
Board's efforts to independently review the design and 
construction of new defense nuclear facilities to ensure that 
eventual operation of these facilities will be safe for workers 
and the public. However, the budget request did not take into 
account a decreasing workload for the Board. The primary 
justification of an increasing budget was a need for additional 
FTEs to review the design and construction of two new, major 
nuclear facilities, which combined were estimated to cost up to 
$8,000,000,000--the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility 
[PDCF] at Savannah River Site and the Chemistry and Metallurgy 
Research Replacement [CMRR] nuclear facility at Los Alamos 
National Laboratory. PDCF has been terminated and construction 
of CMRR has been delayed by at least 5 years. The Committee 
recommendation provides funding to support oversight activities 
over the remaining eight major construction projects.

                        Delta Regional Authority

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $11,677,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      11,315,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,315,000

    For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends 
$11,315,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to 
assist the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining 
basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and 
opportunities for economic development.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $10,679,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      10,165,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,165,000

    The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership 
responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job 
training, and other economic development services in rural 
areas throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee 
recommends $10,165,000.

                  Northern Border Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $1,497,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       1,425,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,425,000

    The Committee recommends $1,425,000 for the Northern Border 
Regional Commission.

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

Appropriations, 2012....................................        $250,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    The Committee recommends no funding for the Southeast 
Crescent Regional Commission consistent with the budget 
request.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2012....................................  $1,027,240,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................   1,042,200,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,042,200,000

                                REVENUES

Appropriations, 2012....................................   -$899,726,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................    -914,832,000
Committee recommendation................................    -914,832,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012....................................    $127,514,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................     127,368,000
Committee recommendation................................     127,368,000

    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for fiscal year 2013 is $1,042,200,000. This amount 
is offset by estimated revenues of $914,832,000 resulting in a 
net appropriation of $127,368,000.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012....................................     $10,860,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      11,020,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,870,000

                                REVENUES

Appropriations, 2012....................................     -$9,774,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................      -9,918,000
Committee recommendation................................      -9,918,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $1,086,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       1,102,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,952,000

    The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $1,952,000. 
The increase of $850,000 is provided for the Inspector General 
to serve as the inspector general for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board [Board]. The funding for the inspector 
general services for the Board is not offset by receipts.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 2012....................................      $3,400,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       3,400,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,400,000

    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to 
evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board reports its findings no fewer than two times a year to 
Congress and to the Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2013, 
the Committee recommends $3,400,000.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects

Appropriation, 2012.....................................      $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2013...................................       3,084,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

    The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural 
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent 
agency in the executive branch on December 13, 2006. The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000. The Committee notes that only 
one joint venture is still pursuing the design and construction 
of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48. This 
joint venture continues with extensive financial support from 
the State of Alaska. The Committee further notes that the 
Office of the Federal Coordinator is legally allowed to receive 
funding from the companies for its work. The Committee urges 
the agency to take advantage of this potential funding source 
as the work of the agency directly benefits the companies.

                           GENERAL PROVISION

    Section 401. The Committee has included a provision that 
clarifies that the Denali Commission has authority to receive 
conditional gifts and authority to receive transfers from other 
Federal agencies. The provision also requires the Commission to 
submit an annual report on conditional gifts and transfers.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    In fiscal year 2013, for purposes of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), 
as amended, the following information provides the definition 
of the term ``program, project or activity'' for departments 
and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriation bill. The term ``program, project or 
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Bill, 2013 and the report accompanying the bill.
    If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the 
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any 
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2013 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 to all items specified in 
the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations in support of the fiscal year 2013 budget 
estimates as modified by congressional action.

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

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''
    The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not 
covered under this rule, but reports this information in the 
spirit of full disclosure.
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal 
year 2013:
    Corps of Engineers.--Individual studies and projects 
proposed for appropriations within this bill are specifically 
authorized by law. The appropriation accounts where the funding 
for the studies and projects are recommended are not considered 
to be authorized as there is no originating act providing for 
these appropriation accounts.
    Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply 
Activities:
    Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal, 
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
    Health, Safety and Security;
    Non-Defense Environmental Management;
    Office of Science;
    Department of Administration;
    National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons 
Activities; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; 
Office of the Administrator;
    Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion;
    Other Defense Activities;
    Defense Nuclear Waste Fund;
    Office of Security and Performance Assurance;
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
    Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern, 
Southwestern, Western Area; and
    Energy Information Administration.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on April 26, 2012, 
the Committee ordered favorably reported en bloc an original 
bill (S. 2375) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for 
other purposes, and reported an original bill (S. 2465) making 
appropriations for energy and water development and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for 
other purposes, provided, that each bill be subject to further 
amendment and that each bill be consistent with its spending 
allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-1, a quorum being 
present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Inouye                     Mr. Johnson (WI)
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson (SD)
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Brown
Mr. Cochran
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Coats
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven

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

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

                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE


                    CHAPTER 84--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


               SUBCHAPTER II--ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT


Sec. 7135. Energy Information Administration.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(i) Manufacturers energy consumption survey

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(k) Survey procedure

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       CHAPTER 134--ENERGY POLICY


                 SUBCHAPTER VII--GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE


[Sec. 13385. National inventory and voluntary reporting of greenhouse 
                    gases

[(a) National inventory

    [Not later than one year after October 24, 1992, the 
Secretary, through the Energy Information Administration, shall 
develop, based on data available to, and obtained by, the 
Energy Information Administration, an inventory of the national 
aggregate emissions of each greenhouse gas for each calendar 
year of the baseline period of 1987 through 1990. The 
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall 
annually update and analyze such inventory using available 
data. This subsection does not provide any new data collection 
authority.

[(b) Voluntary reporting

        [(1) Issuance of guidelines

            [Not later than 18 months after October 24, 1992, 
        the Secretary shall, after opportunity for public 
        comment, issue guidelines for the voluntary collection 
        and reporting of information on sources of greenhouse 
        gases. Such guidelines shall establish procedures for 
        the accurate voluntary reporting of information on--
                [(A) greenhouse gas emissions--
                        [(i) for the baseline period of 1987 
                        through 1990; and
                        [(ii) for subsequent calendar years on 
                        an annual basis;
                [(B) annual reductions of greenhouse gas 
                emissions and carbon fixation achieved through 
                any measures, including fuel switching, forest 
                management practices, tree planting, use of 
                renewable energy, manufacture or use of 
                vehicles with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, 
                appliance efficiency, energy efficiency, 
                methane recovery, cogeneration, 
                chlorofluorocarbon capture and replacement, and 
                power plant heat rate improvement;
                [(C) reductions in greenhouse gas emissions 
                achieved as a result of--
                        [(i) voluntary reductions;
                        [(ii) plant or facility closings; and
                        [(iii) State or Federal requirements; 
                        and
                [(D) an aggregate calculation of greenhouse gas 
                emissions by each reporting entity.

        [Such guidelines shall also establish procedures for 
        taking into account the differential radiative activity 
        and atmospheric lifetimes of each greenhouse gas.

        [(2) Reporting procedures

            [The Administrator of the Energy Information 
        Administration shall develop forms for voluntary 
        reporting under the guidelines established under 
        paragraph (1), and shall make such forms available to 
        entities wishing to report such information. Persons 
        reporting under this subsection shall certify the 
        accuracy of the information reported.
        [(3) Confidentiality

            [Trade secret and commercial or financial 
        information that is privileged or confidential shall be 
        protected as provided in section 552(b)(4) of title 5.

        [(4) Establishment of data base

            [Not later than 18 months after October 24, 1992, 
        the Secretary, through the Administrator of the Energy 
        Information Administration, shall establish a data base 
        comprised of information voluntarily reported under 
        this subsection. Such information may be used by the 
        reporting entity to demonstrate achieved reductions of 
        greenhouse gases.

[(c) Consultation

    [In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult, 
as appropriate, with the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency.]
                                ------                                


                         TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS


                     CHAPTER 40--RECLAMATION STATES


                     SUBCHAPTER I--DROUGHT PROGRAM


Sec. 2214. Applicable period of drought program

(a) In general

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(c) Termination of authority

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


          SUBCHAPTER III--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS


Sec. 2241. Authorization of appropriations

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


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


SEC. 3. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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


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


SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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


  OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        1999, PUBLIC LAW 105-277


                       DIVISION C--OTHER MATTERS


                      TITLE III--DENALI COMMISSION


SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 305. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

    (a) Information From Federal Agencies.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(c) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
gifts or donations of services or property.]
    (c) Gifts.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), the Commission, on behalf of the United States, 
        may accept use, and dispose of gifts or donations of 
        services, property, or money for purposes of 5 carrying 
        out this Act.
            (2) Conditional.--With respect to conditional 
        gifts--
                    (A)(i) the Commission, on behalf of the 
                United States, may accept conditional gifts for 
                purposes of carrying out this Act, if approved 
                by the Federal Cochairperson; and
                    (ii) the principal of and income from any 
                such conditional gift shall be held, invested, 
                reinvested, and used in accordance with the 
                condition applicable to the gift; but
                    (B) no gift shall be accepted that is 
                conditioned on any expenditure not to be funded 
                from the gift or from the income generated by 
                the gift unless the expenditure has been 
                approved by Act of Congress; and
                    (C) the Commission shall submit an annual 
                report to the House and Senate Committees on 
                Appropriations that describes the amount and 
                terms of conditional gifts, the manner in which 
                such conditional gifts were or shall be used, 
                and any results achieved by such use.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 310. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Commission to carry out the duties of the Commission 
consistent with the purposes of this title and pursuant to the 
work plan approved under section 4 under this Act, $20,000,000 
for fiscal year 1999, and such sums as may be necessary for 
fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2008.
    (b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the 
authorization contained in this section shall remain available 
until expended.

SEC. 311. TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

    (a) The Commission may accept transfers of funds from other 
Federal agencies for purposes of this Act.
    (b) Any Federal agency authorized to carry out an activity 
that is within the authority of the Commission may transfer to 
the Commission any appropriated funds available for such 
activity. Funds transferred to the Commission under this 
section shall be merged with and be available for the same time 
period as the commission's appropriation.
    (c) The Commission shall submit a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing and summarizing 
all transfers to and expenditures from the Denali Commission 
under this section.
                                ------                                


       CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, PUBLIC LAW 106-554


                               DIVISION B


                                TITLE I

    Sec. 110. San Gabriel Basin, California. (a) San gabriel 
basin restoration.--
    (1) Establishment of fund.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) Purposes of fund.--
            (A) In general.-- * * *
                    (i) * * *
                    (ii) to operate and maintain any project 
                constructed under this section for such period 
                as the Secretary determines, but not to exceed 
                [10] 15 years, following the initial date of 
                operation of the project.
                                ------                                


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


        ``DIVISION B--CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2007


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


               ``CHAPTER 3--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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


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


            TITLE VIII--IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF ENERGY POLICY

                  Subtitle A--Management Improvements

[SEC. 804. COORDINATION OF PLANNED REFINERY OUTAGES.

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


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


                       TITLE X--WATER SETTLEMENTS

          Subtitle A--San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement

          PART I--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ACT

SEC. 10009. APPROPRIATIONS; SETTLEMENT FUND.

    (a) Implementation Costs.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

                        BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL


  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
 for 2013: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
    Mandatory...............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Discretionary...........................................       33,361       33,361       41,110    \1\41,110
        Security............................................       17,550       17,550           NA           NA
        Nonsecurity.........................................       15,811       15,811           NA           NA
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2013....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........    \2\19,775
    2014....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        9,327
    2015....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        2,990
    2016....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          599
    2017 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          533
Financial assistance to State and local governments for                NA           80           NA           17
 2013.......................................................
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
 
NA: Not applicable.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2013
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                             compared with (+ or -)
                                Item                                       2012       Budget estimate     Committee    ---------------------------------
                                                                      appropriation                     recommendation        2012
                                                                                                                         appropriation   Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
 
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
 
                     Corps of Engineers--Civil
 
Investigations.....................................................         125,000          102,000          125,000   ...............         +23,000
Construction.......................................................       1,694,000        1,471,000        1,700,000           +6,000         +229,000
Mississippi River and Tributaries..................................         252,000          234,000          253,000           +1,000          +19,000
    Disaster relief category (Public Law 112-77)...................         802,000   ...............  ...............        -802,000   ...............
Operations and Maintenance.........................................       2,412,000        2,398,000        2,404,000           -8,000           +6,000
    Disaster relief category (Public Law 112-77)...................         534,000   ...............  ...............        -534,000   ...............
Regulatory Program.................................................         193,000          205,000          199,000           +6,000           -6,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP]...........         109,000          104,000          109,000   ...............          +5,000
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies..............................          27,000           30,000           30,000           +3,000   ...............
    Disaster relief category (Public Law 112-77)...................         388,000   ...............  ...............        -388,000   ...............
Expenses...........................................................         185,000          182,000          182,000           -3,000   ...............
Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............           5,000            5,000            5,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil.................       6,726,000        4,731,000        5,007,000       -1,719,000         +276,000
          Appropriations...........................................      (5,002,000)      (4,731,000)      (5,007,000)         (+5,000)       (+276,000)
          Disaster relief category.................................      (1,724,000)  ...............  ...............     (-1,724,000)  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 
              Central Utah Project Completion Account
 
Central Utah Project construction..................................          25,154           18,500           18,500           -6,654   ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation.........           2,000            1,200            1,200             -800   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................          27,154           19,700           19,700           -7,454   ...............
 
Program oversight and administration...............................           1,550            1,300            1,300             -250   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Central Utah project completion account...............          28,704           21,000           21,000           -7,704   ...............
 
                       Bureau of Reclamation
 
San Joaquin Restoration Fund.......................................  ...............          12,000   ...............  ...............         -12,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Bureau of Reclamation.................................       1,047,719        1,013,018        1,028,018          -19,701          +15,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of the Interior..................       1,076,423        1,034,018        1,049,018          -27,405          +15,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 
                          Energy Programs
 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.............................       1,825,000        2,337,000        1,985,735         +160,735         -351,265
    Rescission.....................................................          -9,909          -69,667          -69,667          -59,758   ...............
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................          -5,453   ...............  ...............          +5,453   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       1,809,638        2,267,333        1,916,068         +106,430         -351,265
 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability........................         139,500          138,015          138,015           -1,485   ...............
    Defense function...............................................  ...............           5,000            5,000           +5,000   ...............
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................            -397   ...............  ...............            +397   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         139,103          143,015          143,015           +3,912   ...............
 
Nuclear Energy.....................................................         768,663          677,445          692,445          -76,218          +15,000
    Defense function...............................................  ...............          93,000           93,000          +93,000   ...............
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................          -3,272   ...............  ...............          +3,272   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         765,391          770,445          785,445          +20,054          +15,000
 
Fossil Energy Research and Development.............................         534,000          420,575          460,575          -73,425          +40,000
    Rescission.....................................................        -187,000   ...............  ...............        +187,000   ...............
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................            -297   ...............  ...............            +297   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         346,703          420,575          460,575         +113,872          +40,000
 
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.............................          14,909           14,909           14,909   ...............  ...............
Elk Hill School Lands Fund.........................................  ...............          15,580           15,580          +15,580   ...............
Strategic Petroleum Reserve........................................         192,704          195,609          195,609           +2,905   ...............
SPR Petroleum Account (rescission).................................        -500,000         -291,000   ...............        +500,000         +291,000
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.................................          10,119           10,119           10,119   ...............  ...............
    Rescission.....................................................        -100,000           -6,000           -6,000          +94,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         -89,881            4,119            4,119          +94,000   ...............
 
Energy Information Administration..................................         105,000          116,365          116,365          +11,365   ...............
Non-defense Environmental Cleanup..................................         235,721          198,506          228,506           -7,215          +30,000
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................            -415   ...............  ...............            +415   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         235,306          198,506          228,506           -6,800          +30,000
 
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund........         472,930          442,493          442,493          -30,437   ...............
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................            -750   ...............  ...............            +750   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         472,180          442,493          442,493          -29,687   ...............
 
Science............................................................       4,889,000        4,992,052        4,909,000          +20,000          -83,052
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................         -15,366   ...............  ...............         +15,366   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       4,873,634        4,992,052        4,909,000          +35,366          -83,052
 
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy...........................         275,000          350,000          312,000          +37,000          -38,000
 
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program.......................          38,000           38,000           38,000   ...............  ...............
    Offsetting collection..........................................         -38,000          -38,000          -38,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program...........           6,000            9,000            9,000           +3,000   ...............
Departmental Administration........................................         237,623          230,783          220,783          -16,840          -10,000
    Miscellaneous revenues.........................................        -111,623         -108,188         -108,188           +3,435   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation............................................         126,000          122,595          112,595          -13,405          -10,000
 
Office of the Inspector General....................................          42,000           43,468           43,468           +1,468   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Energy programs.......................................       8,813,687        9,815,064        9,708,747         +895,060         -106,317
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                  Atomic Energy Defense Activities
 
              National Nuclear Security Administration
 
Weapons Activities.................................................       7,233,997        7,577,341        7,577,341         +343,344   ...............
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................         -19,877   ...............  ...............         +19,877   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       7,214,120        7,577,341        7,577,341         +363,221   ...............
 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...................................       2,324,303        2,458,631        2,458,631         +134,328   ...............
    Rescission.....................................................         -21,000   ...............  ...............         +21,000   ...............
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................          -7,423   ...............  ...............          +7,423   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       2,295,880        2,458,631        2,458,631         +162,751   ...............
 
Naval Reactors.....................................................       1,080,000        1,088,635        1,088,635           +8,635   ...............
Office of the Administrator........................................         410,000          411,279          386,279          -23,721          -25,000
    Security (rescission)..........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Nuclear Security Administration..............      11,000,000       11,535,886       11,510,886         +510,886          -25,000
 
             Environmental and Other Defense Activities
 
Defense Environmental Cleanup......................................       5,023,000        5,009,001        5,063,987          +40,987          +54,986
    Sec. 309--Contractor pay freeze rescission.....................         -20,050   ...............  ...............         +20,050   ...............
Defense Environmental Cleanup (legislative proposal)...............  ...............         463,000   ...............  ...............        -463,000
Other Defense Activities...........................................         823,364          735,702          735,702          -87,662   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Environmental and Other Defense Activities............       5,826,314        6,207,703        5,799,689          -26,625         -408,014
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities......................      16,826,314       17,743,589       17,310,575         +484,261         -433,014
 
                 Power Marketing Administrations\1\
 
Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration.......           8,428            8,732            8,732             +304   ...............
    Offsetting collections.........................................          -8,428           -8,732           -8,732             -304   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 
Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration.......          45,010           44,200           44,200             -810   ...............
    Offsetting collections.........................................         -33,118          -32,308          -32,308             +810   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................          11,892           11,892           11,892   ...............  ...............
 
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western            285,900          291,920          291,920           +6,020   ...............
 Area Power Administration.........................................
    Offsetting collections.........................................        -189,932         -195,790         -195,790           -5,858   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................          95,968           96,130           96,130             +162   ...............
 
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund..................           4,169            5,555            5,555           +1,386   ...............
    Offsetting collections.........................................          -3,949           -5,335           -5,335           -1,386   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................             220              220              220   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing Administrations.......................         108,080          108,242          108,242             +162   ...............
 
                Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 
Salaries and expenses..............................................         304,600          304,600          304,600   ...............  ...............
Revenues applied...................................................        -304,600         -304,600         -304,600   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title III, Department of Energy.......................      25,748,081       27,666,895       27,127,564       +1,379,483         -539,331
          Appropriations...........................................     (26,639,290)     (28,033,562)     (27,203,231)       (+563,941)       (-830,331)
          Rescissions..............................................       (-891,209)       (-366,667)        (-75,667)       (+815,542)       (+291,000)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
 
Appalachian Regional Commission....................................          68,263           64,850           64,850           -3,413   ...............
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................          29,130           29,415           27,425           -1,705           -1,990
Delta Regional Authority...........................................          11,677           11,315           11,315             -362   ...............
Denali Commission..................................................          10,679           10,165           10,165             -514   ...............
Northern Border Regional Commission................................           1,497            1,425            1,425              -72   ...............
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission.............................             250   ...............  ...............            -250   ...............
 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
    Salaries and expenses..........................................       1,027,240        1,042,200        1,042,200          +14,960   ...............
    Revenues.......................................................        -899,726         -914,832         -914,832          -15,106   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation............................................         127,514          127,368          127,368             -146   ...............
 
    Office of Inspector General....................................          10,860           11,020           11,870           +1,010             +850
    Revenues.......................................................          -9,774           -9,918           -9,918             -144   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation............................................           1,086            1,102            1,952             +866             +850
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.........................         128,600          128,470          129,320             +720             +850
                                                                    ====================================================================================
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............................           3,400            3,400            3,400   ...............  ...............
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas                      1,000            3,084            1,000   ...............          -2,084
 Transportation Projects...........................................
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Independent agencies........................         254,496          252,124          248,900           -5,596           -3,224
          Appropriations...........................................        (254,496)        (252,124)        (248,900)         (-5,596)         (-3,224)
          Rescissions..............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Grand total..................................................      33,805,000       33,684,037       33,432,482         -372,518         -251,555
          Appropriations...........................................     (32,972,209)     (34,050,704)     (33,508,149)       (+535,940)       (-542,555)
          Disaster relief category.................................      (1,724,000)  ...............  ...............     (-1,724,000)  ...............
          Rescissions..............................................       (-891,209)       (-366,667)        (-75,667)       (+815,542)       (+291,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting
  collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase wheeling.



