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


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

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



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2014

                                _______
                                

                 June 27, 2013.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 1245]

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



New obligational authority

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

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


                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

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

                                PURPOSE

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

                SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

                         Subcommittee Hearings

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

                         Votes in the Committee

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

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

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

      OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

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

                      THE NATION'S WATERWAY SYSTEM

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

                      INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

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

         OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR INLAND WATERWAYS

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

                     HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

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

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



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

                              LEVEE SAFETY

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

                            LEVEE VEGETATION

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

                            PLANNING PROGRAM

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

               CREDIT FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS

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

                  LEVELS OF SERVICE AT LOCKS AND DAMS

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

                 CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING

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

                    NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

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

                          SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE

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

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

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

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

                    ALASKA

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

                   ARKANSAS

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

                  CALIFORNIA

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

                   COLORADO

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

                    FLORIDA

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

                    GEORGIA

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

                    HAWAII

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

                   ILLINOIS

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

                    KANSAS

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

                   KENTUCKY

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

                   LOUISIANA

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

                   MARYLAND

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

                 MASSACHUSETTS

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

                   MINNESOTA

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

                   MISSOURI

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

                    MONTANA

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

                 NEW HAMPSHIRE

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

                  NEW JERSEY

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

                  NEW MEXICO

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

                   NEW YORK

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

                NORTH CAROLINA

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

                 NORTH DAKOTA

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

                    OREGON

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

                SOUTH CAROLINA

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

                     TEXAS

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

                   VIRGINIA

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

                  WASHINGTON

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

                REMAINING ITEMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

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

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

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

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

               CALIFORNIA

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

                 FLORIDA

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

                 GEORGIA

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

                ILLINOIS

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

                 INDIANA

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

                  IOWA

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

                 KANSAS

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

                KENTUCKY

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

                LOUISIANA

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

                MARYLAND

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

              MASSACHUSETTS

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

                MISSOURI

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

               NEW JERSEY

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

                NEW YORK

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

             NORTH CAROLINA

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

              NORTH DAKOTA

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

                  OHIO

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

                OKLAHOMA

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

                 OREGON

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

              PENNSYLVANIA

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

               PUERTO RICO

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

             SOUTH CAROLINA

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

                TENNESSEE

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

                  TEXAS

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

                VIRGINIA

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

               WASHINGTON

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

              WEST VIRGINIA

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

                WISCONSIN

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

             REMAINING ITEMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              CONSTRUCTION

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

        OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

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

             REMAINING ITEMS

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

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

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

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

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

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

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

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

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

                 ALASKA

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

                 ARIZONA

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

                ARKANSAS

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

               CALIFORNIA

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

                COLORADO

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

               CONNECTICUT

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

                DELAWARE

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

          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

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

                 FLORIDA

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

                 GEORGIA

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

                 HAWAII

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

                  IDAHO

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

                ILLINOIS

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

                 INDIANA

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

                  IOWA

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

                 KANSAS

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

                KENTUCKY

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

                LOUISIANA

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

                  MAINE

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

                MARYLAND

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

              MASSACHUSETTS

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

                MICHIGAN

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

                MINNESOTA

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

               MISSISSIPPI

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

                MISSOURI

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

                 MONTANA

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

                NEBRASKA

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

                 NEVADA

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

              NEW HAMPSHIRE

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

               NEW JERSEY

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

               NEW MEXICO

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

                NEW YORK

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

             NORTH CAROLINA

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

              NORTH DAKOTA

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

                  OHIO

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

                OKLAHOMA

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

                 OREGON

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

              PENNSYLVANIA

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

              RHODE ISLAND

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

             SOUTH CAROLINA

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

              SOUTH DAKOTA

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

                TENNESSEE

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

                  TEXAS

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

                  UTAH

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

                 VERMONT

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

                VIRGINIA

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

               WASHINGTON

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

              WEST VIRGINIA

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

                WISCONSIN

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

                 WYOMING

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

             REMAINING ITEMS

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

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

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

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

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

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

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

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

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

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

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $195,000,000 
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2014.
    The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites 
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was 
transferred from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps of 
Engineers in the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-62.
    FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program 
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic 
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup 
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the 
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. 
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible 
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not 
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real 
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
    The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the 
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its 
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used 
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming 
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program.
    The Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing 
completion. Within the funds provided in accordance with the 
budget request, the Corps is directed to complete the Remedial 
Investigation/Feasibility Study of the former Sylvania nuclear 
fuel site at Hicksville, New York, and, as appropriate, to 
proceed expeditiously to a Record of Decision and initiation of 
any necessary remediation in accordance with the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
[CERCLA].

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

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

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

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

                            GENERAL EXPENSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

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

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                              INTRODUCTION

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

      OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

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

                      WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

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

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

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

           FEDERAL PREFERENCE POWER FOR RECLAMATION PROJECTS

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

                   CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

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

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

                             ARIZONA

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

                           CALIFORNIA

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

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

                            COLORADO

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

                              IDAHO

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

                             KANSAS

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

                             MONTANA

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

                            NEBRASKA

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

                             NEVADA

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

                           NEW MEXICO

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

                          NORTH DAKOTA

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

                            OKLAHOMA

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

                             OREGON

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

                          SOUTH DAKOTA

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

                              TEXAS

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

                              UTAH

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

                           WASHINGTON

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

                             WYOMING

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

                         REMAINING ITEMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

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

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

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

                    CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

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

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

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

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

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

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

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

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

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

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

                    INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

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

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

                      SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND

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

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

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                          Exascale Initiative

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

                       Small Business Contracting

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

                        Reprogramming Guidelines

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

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

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

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

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

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

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

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

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

                             Nuclear Energy

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

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

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

                Nuclear Energy Research and Development

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

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development


                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

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

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

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

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

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

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

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

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

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

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

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

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve


                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

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

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

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

                   Energy Information Administration

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

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

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

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup

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

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

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

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

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

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

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

                                Science

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

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

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

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

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

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

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

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

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

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

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

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

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

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

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

           WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

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

               Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

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

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

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

              Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program


                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

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

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

                          OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

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

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

                           NET APPROPRIATION

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

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

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

        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

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

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

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

                      Departmental Administration


                                (GROSS)

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

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

                        (MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

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

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

                           NET APPROPRIATION

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

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

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

                    Office of the Inspector General

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

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

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

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES


                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

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

                           Weapons Activities

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

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

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

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

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

                               CAMPAIGNS

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

              NUCLEAR OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION

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

               NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

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

                        DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

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

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

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

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

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

                   GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

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

           INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

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

       DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

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

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

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

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

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

                             Naval Reactors

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

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

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

                      Office of the Administrator

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

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

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

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

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

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

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

                        Other Defense Activities

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

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

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

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS


                    Bonneville Power Administration

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

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

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

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

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

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

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

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

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

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

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

                            REVENUES APPLIED

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

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

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

            ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

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

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

              NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

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

              NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

           NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                      WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

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

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

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

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

              SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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

                                TITLE IV

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

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

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

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

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

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

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

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

                        Delta Regional Authority

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

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

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

                           Denali Commission

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

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

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

                  Northern Border Regional Commission

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

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

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

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

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

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

                                REVENUES

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

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

                           NET APPROPRIATION

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

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

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

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

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

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

                                REVENUES

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

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

                           NET APPROPRIATION

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

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

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

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

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

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

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

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects

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

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

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

                           GENERAL PROVISION

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

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

                     Program, Project, and Activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE


                    CHAPTER 84--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


               SUBCHAPTER II--ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT


Sec. 7135. Energy Information Administration.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(i) Manufacturers energy consumption survey

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(k) Survey procedure

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       CHAPTER 109B--SECURE WATER


Sec. 10361. Findings

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 10364. Water management improvement

(a) Authorization of grants and cooperative agreements

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(e) Authorization of appropriations

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


                         TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS


                     CHAPTER 40--RECLAMATION STATES


                     SUBCHAPTER I--DROUGHT PROGRAM


Sec. 2214. Applicable period of drought program

(a) In general

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(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 102-575


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

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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


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


SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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


            WATER DESALINATION ACT, 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-298


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SECTION 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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


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


    TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

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


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


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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


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


        ``DIVISION B--CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2007


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


               ``CHAPTER 3--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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


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


                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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


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


            TITLE VIII--IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF ENERGY POLICY

                  Subtitle A--Management Improvements

[SEC. 804. COORDINATION OF PLANNED REFINERY OUTAGES.

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


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


                       TITLE X--WATER SETTLEMENTS

          Subtitle A--San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement

          PART I--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ACT

SEC. 10009. APPROPRIATIONS; SETTLEMENT FUND.

    (a) Implementation Costs.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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


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


                       TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESSES

                 Subtitle C--Small Business Contracting

                     PART III--ACQUISITION PROCESS

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

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

                        BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL


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

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

NA: Not applicable.


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

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                     Corps of Engineers--Civil

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

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

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

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

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

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

              Central Utah Project Completion Account

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

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

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

                          Energy Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

              National Nuclear Security Administration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

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

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

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

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

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



