[Senate Report 105-206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 401
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     105-206
_______________________________________________________________________


 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1999

                                _______
                                

                  June 5, 1998.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2138]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2138) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.


Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 1999

Budget estimates considered by Senate................... $21,725,462,000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................  21,371,266,000
The bill as reported to the Senate--
    Below the budget estimate, 1999.....................    -354,196,000
    Over enacted bill, 1998.............................     109,359,000
                    ========================================================
                      __________________________________________________


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                                TITLE I

Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
    Corps of Engineers--Civil:
                                                                   Page
        General investigations...................................     9
        Construction, general....................................    28
        Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries.........    49
        Operation and maintenance, general.......................    55
        Regulatory program.......................................    76
        Flood control and coastal emergencies....................    76
        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program..........    77
        General expenses.........................................    77

                                TITLE II

Department of the Interior:
    Central Utah project completion account......................    78
    Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources...........    78
    California bay-delta ecosystem restoration...................    89
    Bureau of Reclamation loan program account...................    90
    Central Valley project restoration fund......................    92
    Policy and administrative expenses...........................    92

                               TITLE III

Department of Energy:
    Energy Supplyh Programs......................................    93
        Solar and renewable energy...............................    94
        Nuclear energy programs..................................    97
        Environment, safety, and health..........................    98
        Energy support activities................................    98
    Environmental management (nondefense)........................    99
    Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund..    99
    Nuclear waste fund...........................................   100
    Science......................................................   100
        High energy physics......................................   100
        Nuclear physics..........................................   101
        Biological and environmental research....................   101
        Basic energy sciences....................................   101
        Other energy research programs...........................   101
        Fusion energy sciences...................................   101
    Departmental administration..................................   103
        Miscellaneous revenues...................................   103
    Office of Inspector General..................................   103
    Atomic energy defense activities.............................   103
        Weapon activities........................................   103
        Defense environmental restoration and waste management...   109
        Site closure.............................................   113
        Defense environmental management privatization...........   113
        Other defense activities.................................   114
        Defense nuclear waste disposal...........................   120
    Power marketing administrations:
        Operations and maintenance, Alaska Power Administration..   121
        Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power 
          Administration.........................................   124
        Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power 
          Administration.........................................   124
        Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance, 
          Western Area Power Administration......................   124
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.........................   125
    Salaries and expenses--revenues applied......................   125

                                TITLE IV

Independent Agencies:
    Appalachian Regional Commission..............................   147
    Denali Commission............................................   147
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board......................   147
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................   148
    Office of Inspector General..................................   151
    Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.........................   151
    Tennessee Valley Authority...................................   152

                                TITLE V

General provisions...............................................   153

                                TITLE VI

Denali Commission................................................   154
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   155
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   155
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   157

                                Purpose

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 1999 beginning October 1, 1998, and ending 
September 30, 1999, 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 (except for 
fossil fuel programs and certain conservation and regulatory 
functions), including environmental restoration and waste 
management, and atomic energy defense activities in title III; 
and for related independent agencies and commissions, including 
the Appalachian Regional Commission and Appalachian regional 
development programs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 
the Tennessee Valley Authority in title IV.

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The fiscal year 1999 budget estimates for the bill total 
$21,725,462,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $21,371,266,000. This is 
$354,196,000 below the budget estimates and $109,359,000 over 
the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.

                     subcommittee budget allocation

    The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee allocation 
under section 302(b)(1) of the Budget Act totals 
$21,077,000,000 in budget authority and $20,720,000,000 in 
outlays for fiscal year 1999. The bill as recommended by the 
Committee is within the subcommittee allocation for fiscal year 
1999 in budget authority and outlays.
    The Committee allocation for nondefense discretionary 
funding for fiscal year 1999 is essentially a freeze, 
$9,047,000,000 in budget authority, but is $57,000,000 below 
the budget request in outlays. This constrained budget 
situation combined with the administration's totally 
irresponsible action in under funding ongoing projects of the 
Corps of Engineers by $1,300,000,000 below the efficient rate 
to keep projects proceeding without significant delay, has 
placed extreme demands on the available nondefense 
discretionary resources available to the Committee. The Corps 
testified that the budget presented by the administration would 
conservatively result in a estimated $376,300,000 in increased 
costs to the Federal Government and $3,900,000,000 in forgone 
benefits.
    The defense discretionary allocation of $12,030,000,000 in 
budget authority is $268,000,000 below the budget request for 
the subcommittee, and $55,000,000 below the budget request for 
outlays. Again, in order to meet the outlay target, the 
subcommittee has to reduce defense activities and programs from 
the request by $350,000,000.
    Faced with severely constrained budget resources and the 
totally unacceptable reductions in the Corp of Engineers' water 
resource development program, the Committee has not been able 
to include new construction starts, and has applied available 
resources to ongoing projects. The Committee has also had to 
severely limit the numbers of new studies recommended for 
inclusion in the bill.

                 Government Performance and Results Act

    In accordance with the Government Performance and Results 
Act, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission submitted performance plans to the Committee in 
February 1998.
    The Department of Energy's performance plan is improved 
over the previous years. Unfortunately, there is considerable 
inconsistency among the quality of information provided by 
program offices. Energy research accounts are prone to 
subjective and vague goals such as: increasing activities to 
remove barriers to U.S. companies in energy efficiency, 
renewables, oil and gas recovery and clean coal technology 
markets; or reducing the country's vulnerability to imported 
oil. Those goals provide no basis for the evaluation of 
performance and, as a result, in no way assist in the purposes 
of the Government Performance and Results Act.
    Other programs do much better. For example, environmental 
management sets specific goals regarding the amount of material 
that will be processed at waste treatment facilities and when 
contracts will be awarded. Those sorts of measures should serve 
as a model for other program offices.
    It is the Committee's observation that program offices with 
vague and subjective goals in the Department's performance plan 
lack management focus. Those programs are frequently 
characterized by stove pipes within internal organizations, 
poor technology review capability, and an inability to evaluate 
the merits of their own programs.
    The Committee again commends the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission [NRC] on its performance plan. Interestingly, the 
General Accounting Office [GAO] review of the NRC performance 
plan found a shortcoming the Committee attributes to the NRC as 
a whole, later in this report. The GAO found that the NRC 
performance plan includes over 110 output measures for seven 
strategic goals. By including such a large number of output 
measures, NRC risks creating an excess of data that will 
obscure rather that clarify performance issues. The Committee 
joins the GAO in recommending that the NRC rank its performance 
goals.

                            Bill Highlights

                    atomic energy defense activities

    The amount recommended in the bill includes $11,872,360,000 
for atomic energy defense activities. Major programs and 
activities include:

Stockpile stewardship...................................  $2,163,375,000
Stockpile management....................................   2,076,825,000
Nonproliferation and national security..................     696,300,000
Other defense programs..................................   1,658,160,000
Defense waste management and environmental restoration..   4,293,403,000
Defense facilities closure projects.....................   1,048,240,000
Defense environmental privatization.....................     241,857,000

                             energy supply

    The bill recommended by the Committee provides a total of 
$669,836,000 for energy research programs including:

Solar and renewable energy..............................    $345,479,000
Nuclear fission R&D.....................................     280,662,000

                  nondefense environmental management

    An appropriation of $456,700,000 is recommended for 
nondefense environmental management activities of the 
Department of Energy.

                                science

    The Committee recommendation also provides a net 
appropriation of $2,669,560,000 for general science and 
research activities in life sciences, high energy physics, and 
nuclear physics. Major programs are:

High energy physics research............................    $691,000,000
Nuclear physics.........................................     332,600,000
Basic energy sciences...................................     836,100,000
Biological and environmental R&D........................     407,600,000
Magnetic fusion.........................................     232,000,000

               regulatory and other independent agencies

    Also recommended in the bill is $705,898,000 for various 
regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government. 
Major programs include:

Appalachian Regional Commission.........................     $67,000,000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission....................     168,898,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...........................     466,000,000
Tennessee Valley Authority..............................      70,000,000

                      water resources development

Corps of Engineers:
    General investigations..............................    $165,390,000
    Construction........................................   1,248,068,000
    Flood control Mississippi River and tributaries.....     313,234,000
    Operations and maintenance..........................   1,667,572,000
    Corps of Engineers, regulatory activities...........     106,000,000
Bureau of Reclamation:
    California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration..........      65,000,000
    Central Valley project restoration fund.............      39,500,000
    Water and related resource..........................     672,119,000
    Central Utah project completion.....................      44,948,000

    The Committee has also recommended appropriations totaling 
approximately $4,670,256,000 for Federal water resource 
development programs. This includes projects and related 
activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Civil and the 
Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior. The 
Federal water resource development program provides lasting 
benefits to the Nation in the area of flood control, municipal 
and industrial water supply, irrigation of agricultural lands, 
water conservation, commercial navigation, hydroelectric power, 
recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement.
    Water is our Nation's most precious and valuable resource. 
It is evident that water supply in the near future will be as 
important, if not more so, than energy. There is only so much 
water available. Water cannot be manufactured. Our Nation 
cannot survive without water, and economic prosperity cannot 
occur without a plentiful supply.
    While many areas of the country suffer from severe 
shortages of water, others suffer from the other extreme--an 
excess of water which threatens both rural and urban areas with 
floods. Because water is a national asset, and because the 
availability and control of water affect and benefit all States 
and jurisdictions, the Federal Government has historically 
assumed much of the responsibility for financing of water 
resource development.
    The existing national water resource infrastructure in 
America is an impressive system of dams, locks, harbors, 
canals, irrigation systems, reservoirs, and recreation sites 
with a central purpose--to serve the public's needs.
    Our waterways and harbors are an essential part of our 
national transportation system--providing clean, efficient, and 
economical transportation of fuels for energy generation and 
agricultural production, and making possible residential and 
industrial development to provide homes and jobs for the 
American people.
    Reservoir projects provide hydroelectric power production 
and downstream flood protection, make available recreational 
opportunities for thousands of urban residents, enhance fish 
and wildlife habitat, and provide our communities and 
industries with abundant and clean water supplies which are 
essential not only to life itself, but also to help maintain a 
high standard of living for the American people.
    When projects are completed, they make enormous 
contributions to America. The benefits derived from completed 
projects, in many instances, vastly exceed those contemplated 
during project development. In 1997, flood control projects 
prevented $45,500,000,000 in damages, and U.S. ports and 
harbors annually handle about $600,000,000,000 in international 
cargo generating over $150,000,000,000 in tax revenues, nearly 
$520,000,000,000 in personal income, contributing 
$783,000,000,000 to the Nation's gross domestic product, and 
$1,600,000,000,000 in business sales.

                         subcommittee hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the 
Committee on Appropriations held three sessions in connection 
with the fiscal year 1999 appropriation bill. Witnesses 
included officials and representatives of the Federal agencies 
under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    In addition, the subcommittee received numerous statements 
and letters from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of 
Representatives, Governors, State and local officials and 
representatives, and hundreds of private citizens of all walks 
of life throughout the United States. Testimony, both for and 
against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The 
recommendations for fiscal year 1999, therefore, have been 
developed after careful consideration of available data.

                         votes in the committee

    By unanimous vote of 27 to 0 the Committee on June 4, 1998, 
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

                         general investigations

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $156,804,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     165,390,000

    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

                                                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS                                                       
                                                                  [Amounts in dollars]                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Budget estimate            Committee recommendation   
Type of                   Project title                    Total Federal   Allocated to  ---------------------------------------------------------------
project                                                        cost            date       Investigations     Planning     Investigations     Planning   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                           ALABAMA                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, AL        1,300,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         200,000  ..............  
  (SPE)BIRMINGHAM WATERSHEDS, VILLAGE CREEK, AL              1,100,000         426,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
    (N)BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL                  5,100,000         100,000         500,000  ..............         500,000  ..............  
  (SPE)CAHABA RIVER WATERSHED, AL                            1,100,000         426,000          50,000  ..............          50,000  ..............  
    (N)DOG RIVER, AL                                           768,000         534,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                            ALASKA                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)AKUTAN HARBOR, AK                                       320,000         180,000         140,000  ..............         140,000  ..............  
  (FDP)ANIAK, AK                                               637,000         304,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
    (N)ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK                          200,000         100,000  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
       BREVIG MISSION, AK                                      500,000         100,000  ..............  ..............         200,000  ..............  
  (FDP)CHANDALAR RIVER WATERSHED, AK                           100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK                               670,000         452,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
    (N)COASTAL STUDIES NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT, AK            1,800,000         742,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
    (N)DOUGLAS HARBOR EXPANSION, AK                            500,000         100,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
    (N)FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK                                   300,000  ..............         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
    (N)KENAI RIVER NAVIGATION, AK                              601,000         178,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)KENAI RIVER WATERSHED, AK                               900,000         100,000         110,000  ..............         110,000  ..............  
    (E)MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, AK                   1,100,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
       NAKNEK RIVER WATERSHED                                  100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK                     ..............  ..............  ..............         209,000  ..............         225,000  
    (N)NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK                            791,000         781,000          10,000  ..............          10,000  ..............  
    (N)PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK                                   400,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)SAND POINT HARBOR, AK                                13,500,000           8,000  ..............         217,000  ..............         217,000  
    (N)SEWARD HARBOR, AK                                    13,500,000  ..............  ..............         150,000  ..............         225,000  
    (E)SHIP CREEK WATERSHED, AK                                500,000         100,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
    (N)SITKA LIGHTERING FACILITY, AK                           450,000         173,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)THOMAS BASIN HARBOR, AK                                 100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK                             471,000         100,000         118,000  ..............         218,000  ..............  
    (N)WRANGELL HARBOR, AK                                   8,700,000  ..............  ..............          60,000  ..............          60,000  
    (N)WRANGELL HARBOR, AK                                     598,000         531,000          67,000  ..............          67,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           ARIZONA                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)GILA RIVER, NORTH SCOTTSDALE, AZ                      1,975,000       1,111,000         272,000  ..............         272,000  ..............  
  (FDP)GILA RIVER, SANTA CRUZ RIVER BASIN, AZ                1,375,000         968,000         407,000  ..............         407,000  ..............  
  (FDP)RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ                            1,930,000       1,015,000         460,000  ..............         460,000  ..............  
    (E)RIO SALADO, SALT RIVER, AZ                           64,100,000          50,000  ..............         938,000  ..............         938,000  
    (E)TRES RIOS, AZ                                         1,985,000         940,000         610,000  ..............         610,000  ..............  
   (FC)TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ                             18,000,000         703,000  ..............         329,000  ..............         329,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           ARKANSAS                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR                              765,000         196,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
    (N)WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR                30,000,000         326,000  ..............         400,000  ..............         400,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                          CALIFORNIA                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)ALISO CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA                    897,000         355,000         290,000  ..............         290,000  ..............  
   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA                         28,510,000      15,773,000  ..............          50,000  ..............          50,000  
  (FDP)ARROYO PASAJERO, CA                                   4,465,000       4,265,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
    (E)BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA              1,100,000         713,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA            1,050,000         100,000         500,000  ..............         500,000  ..............  
    (E)IMPERIAL COUNTY WATERSHED STUDY, CA                   1,300,000         620,000         265,000  ..............         265,000  ..............  
   (FC)KAWEAH RIVER, CA                                     22,320,000       1,835,000  ..............       1,165,000  ..............       1,165,000  
  (FDP)KERN RIVER VALLEY, ISABELLA LAKE, CA                  1,100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, RUSSIAN RIVER, CA               1,100,000         100,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
    (E)MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA                              600,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
       MARE ISLAND STRAIT DREDGING EXPANSION, CA               100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA CREEK, CA                  1,825,000       1,144,000         520,000  ..............         520,000  ..............  
  (SPE)MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA                                  1,300,000         350,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
    (E)MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA                                   600,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
  (SPE)MUGU LAGOON, CA                                         600,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
  (FDP)N CA STREAMS, DRY CREEK, MIDDLETOWN, CA                 500,000         200,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)N CA STREAMS, FAIRFIELD STREAMS AND CORDELIA          1,400,000         250,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
        MARSH, CA                                                                                                                                       
    (E)N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO RVR RIPARIAN           1,970,000         820,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
        REVEGETATI                                                                                                                                      
    (E)N CA STREAMS, MIDDLE CREEK, CA                        1,070,000         750,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
  (FDP)N CA STREAMS, VACAVILLE, DIXON AND VICINITY, CA         850,000         252,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
   (FC)N CA STREAMS, YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA                   13,997,000          50,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  
   (FC)NAPA RIVER, CA                                       70,800,000      14,256,000  ..............         744,000  ..............         744,000  
    (E)NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA                1,125,000         650,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
       NAPA VALLEY WATERSHEAD MANAGEMENT, CA                   100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA                                1,155,000       1,013,000         142,000  ..............         142,000  ..............  
    (N)OAKLAND HARBOR, CA                                   60,000,000  ..............  ..............         300,000  ..............         300,000  
   (FC)PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA                       8,840,000       1,837,000  ..............         433,000  ..............         433,000  
    (N)PILLAR POINT HARBOR, CA                                 944,000         654,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)PORT OF STOCKTON, CA                                  1,100,000          70,000          30,000  ..............          30,000  ..............  
    (E)PRADO BASIN WATER SUPPLY, CA                            968,000         635,000         333,000  ..............         333,000  ..............  
    (N)REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA                               1,600,000         100,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
    (E)RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA               1,179,000         646,000         285,000  ..............         285,000  ..............  
  (SPE)SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CA                      5,940,000       4,894,000         555,000  ..............         555,000  ..............  
    (E)SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN       12,750,000       3,293,000       3,500,000  ..............       3,500,000  ..............  
        STUDY,                                                                                                                                          
   (BE)SAN CLEMENTE CREEK, CA                                5,900,000         198,000  ..............          50,000  ..............          50,000  
    (N)SAN DIEGO HARBOR (DEEPENING), CA                        730,000         396,000         260,000  ..............         260,000  ..............  
    (N)SAN DIEGO HARBOR, NATIONAL CITY, CA                     700,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)SAN FRANCISCO BAY BAR CHANNEL, CA                     1,100,000         640,000         460,000  ..............         460,000  ..............  
    (N)SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA                                 1,100,000         100,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
    (E)SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, PINE FLAT DAM, F&WL              1,525,000       1,260,000         265,000  ..............         265,000  ..............  
        HABITAT RESTO                                                                                                                                   
  (RCP)SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, STOCKTON METRO AREA,             1,165,000         349,000         500,000  ..............         500,000  ..............  
        FARMINGTON D                                                                                                                                    
    (E)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, CONSUMNES AND                1,100,000          82,000          18,000  ..............          18,000  ..............  
        MOKELUMNE RIVERS,                                                                                                                               
   (FC)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, SOUTH SACRAMENTO            34,500,000         375,000  ..............         900,000  ..............         900,000  
        COUNTY STREA                                                                                                                                    
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN        1,825,000         996,000         400,000  ..............         400,000  ..............  
        AREA, C                                                                                                                                         
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TULE RIVER, CA               1,278,000       1,175,000         103,000  ..............         103,000  ..............  
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA           1,100,000          60,000          40,000  ..............          40,000  ..............  
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS                600,000         196,000         100,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
        COUNTY, CA                                                                                                                                      
    (E)SAN JUAN CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA               1,470,000         609,000         535,000  ..............         535,000  ..............  
    (E)SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA                           1,100,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
  (FDP)SANTA BARBARA COUNTY STREAMS, LOWER MISSION           2,788,000       2,659,000         129,000  ..............         129,000  ..............  
        CREEK, CA                                                                                                                                       
  (FDP)SANTA MARGARITA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, CA             1,600,000         345,000         400,000  ..............         800,000  ..............  
    (E)TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV                                1,200,000         400,000         400,000  ..............         400,000  ..............  
  (SPE)TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA           1,100,000         100,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
       TUOLUMNE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, CA                    1,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         200,000  ..............  
   (FC)UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA                            60,000,000         373,000  ..............         575,000  ..............         575,000  
  (FDP)UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA                            1,845,000         402,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
    (N)VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA                        1,000,000         200,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
  (FDP)WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CA                            2,080,000       1,770,000         310,000  ..............         310,000  ..............  
  (FDP)WHITE RIVER, POSO AND DEER CREEKS, CA                   100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           COLORADO                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
  (RCP)CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK                  932,000          82,000         158,000  ..............         158,000  ..............  
        RESERVOIRS, CO                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
                         CONNECTICUT                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)COASTAL CONNECTICUT ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CT           700,000         100,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           DELAWARE                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
   (BE)BETHANY, SOUTH BETHANY, DE                              500,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  
    (N)C&D CANAL, BALTIMORE HBR CONN CHANNELS, DE AND       69,800,000       2,550,000  ..............         600,000  ..............         600,000  
        MD (DEEPE                                                                                                                                       
   (SP)DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DE AND NJ                     3,406,000       3,355,000          51,000  ..............          51,000  ..............  
   (SP)DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK          2,845,000       2,616,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
        ISLAND, D                                                                                                                                       
       REHOBOTH AND DEWEY BEACHES, DE                          450,000         245,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         150,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           FLORIDA                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)BISCAYNE BAY, FL                                      3,270,000       1,159,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
   (FC)CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL                        8,900,000         357,000  ..............         242,000  ..............         242,000  
    (N)FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL                                  850,000         304,000         270,000  ..............         270,000  ..............  
       FT. PIERCE SHORE PROTECT, FL                     ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         300,000  
    (N)HILLSBORO INLET, FL                                   2,200,000         338,000  ..............         262,000  ..............         262,000  
    (N)INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL          4,027,000          73,000  ..............         270,000  ..............         270,000  
    (N)JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL                             112,500,000          82,000  ..............         600,000  ..............         600,000  
    (N)LAKE WORTH INLET SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL         ..............          82,000  ..............         297,000  ..............         297,000  
       LIDO KEY BEACH, FL                                      350,000          82,000  ..............  ..............         300,000  ..............  
   (BE)NASSAU COUNTY, FL                                    13,300,000       1,671,000  ..............          86,000  ..............          86,000  
    (N)PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL                               4,511,000         143,000  ..............         370,000  ..............         370,000  
    (N)PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL                            6,500,000  ..............  ..............         262,000  ..............         262,000  
       ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH, FL                          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         300,000  ..............  
    (N)ST LUCIE INLET, FL                                   18,600,000         826,000  ..............         205,000  ..............         205,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           GEORGIA                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)AUGUSTA, GA                                             800,000         100,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
    (N)BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA                                 29,890,000         881,000  ..............         250,000  ..............         250,000  
  (FDP)CHATHAM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL, GA                        350,000         152,000         125,000  ..............         125,000  ..............  
  (FDP)CITY OF SAVANNAH FLOOD CONTROL, GA                      460,000         152,000         125,000  ..............         125,000  ..............  
    (E)LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA               1,100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)METRO ATLANTA WATERSHED, GA                           2,300,000         856,000         550,000  ..............         550,000  ..............  
  (RCP)NEW SAVANNAH BLUFF LOCK AND DAM, GA AND SC              840,000         100,000         350,000  ..............         350,000  ..............  
    (N)SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA                        55,900,000         639,000  ..............         250,000  ..............         250,000  
  (COM)SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC         2,600,000         245,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                            HAWAII                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI                               1,350,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI           1,243,000       1,107,000         136,000  ..............         136,000  ..............  
    (N)HILO HARBOR, HI                                         100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)HONOLULU HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, OAHU, HI                 982,000          82,000         125,000  ..............         125,000  ..............  
    (N)KAHULUI HARBOR, HI                                      100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI                 6,471,000       1,129,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  
  (FDP)WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL STUDY, OAHU, HI          1,292,000         974,000         318,000  ..............         318,000  ..............  
   (FC)WAILUPE STREAM FLOOD CONTROL STUDY, OAHU, HI         20,800,000  ..............  ..............          40,000  ..............          40,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           ILLINOIS                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)ALEXANDER AND PULASKI COUNTIES, IL                    1,352,000       1,174,000         178,000  ..............         178,000  ..............  
   (FC)DES PLAINES RIVER, IL                               100,000,000         326,000  ..............         300,000  ..............         300,000  
  (RCP)ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL              2,245,000          82,000         479,000  ..............         479,000  ..............  
  (FDP)KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN, IL AND IN                       1,650,000         345,000         940,000  ..............         940,000  ..............  
  (FDP)MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT QUINCY, IL                       1,055,000         294,000         195,000  ..............         195,000  ..............  
   (FC)NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL              10,500,000         489,000  ..............         325,000  ..............         325,000  
  (SPE)PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL                       930,000         252,000         377,000  ..............         377,000  ..............  
  (SPE)UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY, IL,         11,000,000       1,949,000       1,331,000  ..............       1,331,000  ..............  
        IA, MN, M                                                                                                                                       
  (RCP)UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS NAV STUDY, IL,        53,440,000      44,713,000       5,700,000  ..............       5,700,000  ..............  
        IA, MN, MO                                                                                                                                      
  (RDP)WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL                                     245,000         172,000          73,000  ..............          73,000  ..............  
   (FC)WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MADISON       2,069,000          80,000  ..............         175,000  ..............         175,000  
        COUNTY                                                                                                                                          
  (FDP)WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL                                    600,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           INDIANA                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)MIDDLE WABASH, GREENFIELD BAYOU ENVIRON               3,000,000  ..............  ..............         200,000  ..............         200,000  
        RESTORATION, I                                                                                                                                  
    (E)TIPPECANOE RIVER, IN                                    700,000         100,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                             IOWA                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA                       700,000          82,000         218,000  ..............         218,000  ..............  
  (FDP)INDIAN CREEK, COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA                        100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                            KANSAS                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
  (RCP)TOPEKA, KS                                              918,000         506,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
   (FC)TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO                        28,600,000         159,000  ..............         400,000  ..............         400,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           KENTUCKY                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)AUGUSTA, KY                                             700,000         100,000         318,000  ..............         318,000  ..............  
    (N)GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS NAVIGATION DISPOSITION          830,000         530,000         255,000  ..............         255,000  ..............  
        STUDY,                                                                                                                                          
  (FDP)GREENUP, KY                                             100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
  (FDP)KENTUCKY RIVER TRIBUTARIES, FRANKFORT, KY               700,000         100,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
  (FDP)LEXINGTON, FAYETTE COUNTY, KY                         1,109,000         500,000         228,000  ..............         228,000  ..............  
  (FDP)LICKING RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KY                            600,000         100,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
  (FDP)LICKING RIVER, FALMOUTH, KY                             850,000         100,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
   (FC)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY          6,876,000         294,000  ..............         356,000  ..............         356,000  
  (FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY           850,000         245,000         295,000  ..............         295,000  ..............  
    (N)OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS STUDY, KY, IL, IN,      38,400,000      22,175,000      10,150,000  ..............      10,150,000  ..............  
        PA, WV                                                                                                                                          
  (FDP)OLIVE HILL, KY                                          600,000         100,000         218,000  ..............         218,000  ..............  
  (FDP)PANTHER CREEK, KY                                       600,000         100,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
  (FDP)PADUCAH, KY                                             100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                          LOUISIANA                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)AMITE RIVER, DARLINGTON RESERVOIR, LA                 2,405,000         705,000         400,000  ..............         400,000  ..............  
   (FC)COMITE RIVER, LA                                     74,763,000       6,300,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  
   (FC)EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA                          71,500,000       1,705,000  ..............         395,000  ..............         395,000  
    (N)EAST FORK CALCASIEU PASS, LA (SEC. 509)                 100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY LOCKS, LA                       4,880,000       3,789,000         550,000  ..............         650,000  ..............  
  (FDP)JEFFERSON PARISH, LA                                  3,044,000       2,616,000         428,000  ..............         428,000  ..............  
  (FDP)LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA                                  2,857,000       1,822,000         550,000  ..............         550,000  ..............  
   (SP)LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, LA            1,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............  
    (N)MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, LA       4,000,000         858,000         415,000  ..............         415,000  ..............  
  (FDP)ORLEANS PARISH, LA                                    2,700,000       2,126,000         574,000  ..............         574,000  ..............  
  (FDP)WALLACE LAKE AREA, LA                                 1,100,000         100,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
  (FDP)WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA                    1,875,000         750,000         388,000  ..............         388,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           MARYLAND                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)ANACOSTIA RIVER FEDERAL WATERSHED IMPACT              3,000,000       1,153,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
        ASSESSMENT, M                                                                                                                                   
  (FDP)ANACOSTIA RIVER, NORTHWEST BRANCH, MD AND DC          2,605,000       2,497,000         108,000  ..............         108,000  ..............  
  (FDP)ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD AND DC             590,000         150,000         231,000  ..............         231,000  ..............  
    (N)BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND CHANNELS, MD         20,200,000         468,000  ..............         207,000  ..............         207,000  
        AND VA                                                                                                                                          
  (FDP)BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN, DEEP RUN/TIBER HUDSON,          559,000         524,000          35,000  ..............          35,000  ..............  
        MD                                                                                                                                              
   (FC)BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN, DEEP RUN/TIBER HUDSON,        7,345,000  ..............  ..............          50,000  ..............          50,000  
        MD                                                                                                                                              
  (FDP)BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN, GWYNNS FALLS, MD              1,232,000         994,000         199,000  ..............         199,000  ..............  
       CHESAPEAKE BAY INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM AND               1,100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............  
        ATLANTIC COAST SHELF MODEL, MD                                                                                                                  
   (SP)EASTERN SHORE, MD                                       500,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)HAVRE DE GRACE, MD                                    1,000,000         100,000         110,000  ..............         110,000  ..............  
    (E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, MATTAWOMAN, MD         900,000         263,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
    (E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, WICOMICO AND           650,000         137,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
        ST MARY'                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER, GEORGES CREEK, MD           540,000         230,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
  (FDP)PATUXENT RIVER, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD                 575,000         153,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
  (FDP)PATUXENT RIVER, PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MD             1,650,000       1,195,000         360,000  ..............         360,000  ..............  
    (E)SMITH ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, MD            1,100,000         613,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                        MASSACHUSETTS                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND        1,600,000         616,000         393,000  ..............         393,000  ..............  
        RI                                                                                                                                              
    (E)COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA         700,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           MICHIGAN                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
       SAULT STE. MARIE                                     15,300,000         816,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                          MINNESOTA                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)CROOKSTON, MN                                         6,100,000         495,000  ..............         255,000  ..............         255,000  
   (FC)GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN                92,000,000       3,055,000  ..............         945,000  ..............         945,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                         MISSISSIPPI                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)BAYOU PIERRE, MS                                      1,100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)PASCAGOULA HARBOR, BAYOU CASOTTE EXTENSION, MS          250,000         100,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
   (FC)PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS                            85,056,000          82,000  ..............         400,000  ..............         400,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           MISSOURI                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)BALLWIN, ST LOUIS COUNTY, MO                            450,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
   (FC)BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO                    12,000,000         877,000  ..............         457,000  ..............         457,000  
  (FDP)CHESTERFIELD, MO                                      1,079,000         746,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
  (FDP)FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MO                             563,000         502,000          61,000  ..............          61,000  ..............  
   (FC)FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MO                           3,695,000  ..............  ..............         153,000  ..............         153,000  
  (RCP)KANSAS CITY, MO AND KS                                2,010,000         277,000         245,000  ..............         545,000  ..............  
   (FC)LOWER RIVER DES PERES, MO                             3,250,000  ..............  ..............          64,000  ..............          64,000  
  (FDP)LOWER RIVER DES PERES, MO                               408,000         378,000          30,000  ..............          30,000  ..............  
  (RCP)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND           1,945,000       1,095,000         311,000  ..............         311,000  ..............  
        R460-471, MO                                                                                                                                    
  (RCP)ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO                           800,000         100,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
    (N)ST LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL                           15,074,000       2,495,000  ..............         314,000  ..............         314,000  
  (FDP)SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO             709,000         513,000         196,000  ..............         196,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           NEBRASKA                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE                           2,800,000  ..............  ..............          74,000  ..............          74,000  
  (FDP)ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE                             838,000         678,000         160,000  ..............         160,000  ..............  
  (FDP)LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE                2,060,000         871,000         310,000  ..............         310,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                            NEVADA                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)CARSON RIVER, NV                                        100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS, NV                     1,300,000         763,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
    (E)LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE              1,223,000         993,000         230,000  ..............         230,000  ..............  
        RESERVATION,                                                                                                                                    
    (E)LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, WASHOE COUNTY, NV                  515,000         315,000          50,000  ..............          50,000  ..............  
   (FC)TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV                                  11,250,000       4,388,000  ..............         500,000  ..............       1,700,000  
    (E)WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV                                1,050,000         400,000         150,000  ..............         400,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                          NEW JERSEY                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
       ARTHUR KILL, PERTH AMBOY CHANNEL, NJ                    100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)BARNEGAT BAY, NJ                                      2,400,000         467,000         400,000  ..............         400,000  ..............  
    (E)NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ENV                 1,540,000         467,000         400,000  ..............         400,000  ..............  
        RESTORATION, NJ                                                                                                                                 
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ            415,000         150,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ       1,775,000         959,000         325,000  ..............         325,000  ..............  
  (FDP)SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ                  2,800,000       1,470,000         382,000  ..............         382,000  ..............  
  (FDP)UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBS, LONG HILL,               800,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
        MORRIS COUNT                                                                                                                                    
  (FDP)UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, MORRIS COUNTY, NJ                 800,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                          NEW MEXICO                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)RIO GRANDE WATER MANAGEMENT, NM, CO AND TX            1,100,000  ..............         210,000  ..............         210,000  ..............  
    (E)SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY,               1,100,000  ..............         210,000  ..............         210,000  ..............  
        ALBUQUERQUE, N                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           NEW YORK                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
  (RCP)ADDISON, NY                                           1,105,000         305,000          92,000  ..............          92,000  ..............  
    (N)ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND HOOK MARINE             45,400,000       3,938,000  ..............         845,000  ..............         845,000  
        TERMINAL, NY                                                                                                                                    
  (FDP)AUSABLE RIVER BASIN, ESSEX AND CLINTON                  800,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
        COUNTIES, NY                                                                                                                                    
  (FDP)BOQUET RIVER BASIN AND TRIBUTARIES, ESSEX               800,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
        COUNTY, NY                                                                                                                                      
    (E)CHEMUNG RIVER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION,        1,500,000         431,000         400,000  ..............         400,000  ..............  
        NY AND PA                                                                                                                                       
    (E)FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY                            1,175,000          82,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
    (N)HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY                  2,399,000       1,063,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
   (SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH,             1,000,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
        ARVERNE, NY                                                                                                                                     
   (SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY          1,850,000       1,384,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
  (FDP)LINDENHURST, NY                                         800,000         100,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (N)NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ             9,100,000       1,198,000       7,902,000  ..............       7,902,000  ..............  
    (N)NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS, NY                   1,200,000         574,000         125,000  ..............         125,000  ..............  
   (SP)NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY              1,750,000         716,000         210,000  ..............         210,000  ..............  
  (SPE)ONONDAGA LAKE, NY                                     1,020,000         747,000         125,000  ..............         125,000  ..............  
    (E)SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY                        2,100,000         222,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
   (SP)SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY                      2,100,000         755,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
  (FDP)SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT, NY,         1,450,000       1,040,000         320,000  ..............         320,000  ..............  
        PA AND MD                                                                                                                                       
    (E)UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY                    1,300,000         468,000         351,000  ..............         351,000  ..............  
    (E)UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ENVIRON                 1,200,000         263,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
        RESTORATION, NY                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
                        NORTH CAROLINA                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC                     ..............       3,363,000  ..............         658,000  ..............         658,000  
   (SP)DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC                               2,097,000       1,755,000         342,000  ..............         342,000  ..............  
    (E)TENNESSEE RIVER AND TRIBS, EASTERN BAND                 700,000          50,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
        CHEROKEE NATIO                                                                                                                                  
    (E)TENNESSEE RIVER AND TRIBS, FRANKLIN, MACON              455,000          50,000         305,000  ..............         305,000  ..............  
        COUNTY, NC                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
                         NORTH DAKOTA                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
  (SPE)DEVILS LAKE, ND                                       4,445,000       2,373,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                             OHIO                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH                        1,600,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)GREAT MIAMI RIVER, OXBOW AREA, OH                       900,000         100,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
    (E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, MONDAY             750,000          75,000         500,000  ..............         500,000  ..............  
        CREEK, OH                                                                                                                                       
    (E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV RESTORATION, SUNDAY             650,000          50,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
        CREEK, OH                                                                                                                                       
    (N)MAUMEE RIVER, OH                                        800,000          82,000         223,000  ..............         223,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           OKLAHOMA                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)CIMARRON RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, OK, KS, NM AND        1,470,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
        CO                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
                            OREGON                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)COLUMBIA RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL DEEPENING, OR       4,228,000       3,522,000         335,000  ..............         335,000  ..............  
        AND WA                                                                                                                                          
    (N)COLUMBIA RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL DEEPENING, OR      52,500,000  ..............  ..............         300,000  ..............         300,000  
        AND WA                                                                                                                                          
    (E)COLUMBIA SLOUGH, OR                                     970,000         543,000         275,000  ..............         275,000  ..............  
    (E)LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR        1,600,000  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
        AND WA                                                                                                                                          
    (E)TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM                   1,100,000          82,000         168,000  ..............         168,000  ..............  
        RESTORATION, OR                                                                                                                                 
    (E)WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA                1,146,000         405,000         240,000  ..............         240,000  ..............  
  (COM)WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR                     2,284,000       1,643,000         440,000  ..............         440,000  ..............  
    (E)WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR           1,465,000          82,000         278,000  ..............         278,000  ..............  
   (MP)WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR             62,000,000       3,100,000  ..............          29,000  ..............          29,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                         PENNSYLVANIA                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)BLOOMSBURG, PA                                          800,000         100,000         210,000  ..............         210,000  ..............  
    (E)CONEMAUGH RVR BASIN, NANTY GLO ENVIRONMENTAL          1,875,000          73,000  ..............         227,000  ..............         227,000  
        RESTORATI                                                                                                                                       
    (E)LOWER WEST BR, SUS RIVER, ENV RESTORATION,            1,000,000         500,000         120,000  ..............         120,000  ..............  
        BUFFALO CRE                                                                                                                                     
  (FDP)LOWER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER, LYCOMING           900,000         100,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
        CREEK, P                                                                                                                                        
    (E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, BRUSH CREEK ENV                     450,000         100,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
        RESTORATION, PA                                                                                                                                 
    (E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, LYONS RUN ENV RESTORATION,          450,000         100,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
        PA                                                                                                                                              
    (E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, UPPER TURTLE CREEK ENV              450,000         100,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
        RESTORATION                                                                                                                                     
  (RCP)YOUGHIOGHENY LAKE, PA                                   625,000         477,000         148,000  ..............         148,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                         PUERTO RICO                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)RIO GUANAJIBO, PR                                    21,200,000         709,000  ..............         600,000  ..............         600,000  
   (FC)RIO NIGUA AT SALINAS, PR                              8,900,000         368,000  ..............         306,000  ..............         306,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                         RHODE ISLAND                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)RHODE ISLAND SOUTH COAST, HABITAT REST AND SRTM         700,000         250,000         350,000  ..............         350,000  ..............  
        DMG REDU                                                                                                                                        
       RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, RI                  200,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         200,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                        SOUTH CAROLINA                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
  (RCP)ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC                    3,100,000         508,000         500,000  ..............         500,000  ..............  
    (E)CHARLESTON ESTUARY, SC                                1,600,000         100,000         175,000  ..............         175,000  ..............  
   (SP)PAWLEY'S ISLAND, SC                                     800,000         100,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
    (E)SANTEE, COOPER, CONGAREE RIVERS, SC                   3,119,000         764,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
    (E)YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER WATERSHED, SC AND NC             1,615,000         345,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                         SOUTH DAKOTA                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)JAMES RIVER, SD AND ND                                  900,000  ..............          90,000  ..............          90,000  ..............  
   (FC)WATERTOWN AND VICINITY, SD                           10,790,000         153,000  ..............         380,000  ..............         380,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                          TENNESSEE                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN                                     100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)DUCK RIVER WATERSHED, TN                                900,000         100,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
   (FC)METRO CENTER LEVEE, DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN               4,000,000         122,000  ..............         250,000  ..............         250,000  
  (FDP)NOLICKUCKY WATERSHED, TN                                100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)NORTH CHICKAMAUGA CREEK, TN                             650,000         100,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                            TEXAS                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU,       2,150,000         150,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
        TX                                                                                                                                              
    (N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX                       5,740,000       1,089,000         280,000  ..............         280,000  ..............  
    (E)CYPRESS VALLEY WATERSHED, TX                          2,145,000       1,189,000         300,000  ..............         300,000  ..............  
   (FC)DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER, TX         53,200,000       4,707,000  ..............       1,330,000  ..............       1,330,000  
   (FC)FORT WORTH SUMPS 14 AND 15, UPPER TRINITY RIVER      11,050,000          57,000  ..............         490,000  ..............         490,000  
        BASIN,                                                                                                                                          
  (RCP)GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O'CONNOR, TX               3,900,000         269,000         935,000  ..............         935,000  ..............  
    (N)GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX                 4,600,000       2,672,000       1,100,000  ..............       1,100,000  ..............  
  (RCP)GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX         3,800,000         239,000         400,000  ..............         400,000  ..............  
   (FC)GRAHAM, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN)                       6,100,000          86,000  ..............          64,000  ..............          64,000  
   (FC)GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                           163,166,000       4,431,000  ..............         600,000  ..............         600,000  
   (FC)HUNTING BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                           82,235,000         500,000  ..............         500,000  ..............         500,000  
   (FC)JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON,   ..............  ..............  ..............         600,000  ..............         600,000  
        TX                                                                                                                                              
  (FDP)MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX                               1,510,000         416,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
    (N)NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER,      40,050,000       2,758,000  ..............       1,050,000  ..............       1,050,000  
        TX                                                                                                                                              
       NORTH PACKERY FLOOD PROTECTION AND                    2,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,500,000  ..............  
        ENVIRONMENTAL ESTORATION, TX                                                                                                                    
  (FDP)NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX                                   950,000         206,000         180,000  ..............         180,000  ..............  
   (FC)PECAN BAYOU, BROWNWOOD, TX                            3,300,000  ..............  ..............         350,000  ..............         350,000  
    (E)PLAINVIEW, BRAZOS RIVER BASIN, TX                       832,000         613,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
   (FC)RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX                               72,502,000         436,000  ..............         400,000  ..............         400,000  
    (N)SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX                            3,100,000          82,000         500,000  ..............         500,000  ..............  
   (FC)SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX                              137,455,000       5,094,000  ..............         600,000  ..............         600,000  
  (FDP)UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX                         8,235,000       6,520,000       1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                             UTAH                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
  (FDP)PROVO AND VICINITY, UT                                1,495,000         695,000         150,000  ..............         150,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                        VIRGIN ISLANDS                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)CROWN BAY CHANNEL, VI                                 3,260,000  ..............  ..............         130,000  ..............         130,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           VIRGINIA                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA                       1,168,000         100,000         425,000  ..............         425,000  ..............  
  (SPE)ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENVIR RESTORATION,             1,451,000         300,000         450,000  ..............         450,000  ..............  
        HAMPTON ROAD                                                                                                                                    
    (N)JAMES RIVER, VA                                         720,000         100,000         190,000  ..............         190,000  ..............  
    (N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA          800,000         100,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
  (FDP)POQUOSON, VA                                            625,000         375,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
    (E)POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA                            1,075,000         300,000         400,000  ..............         400,000  ..............  
    (E)PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY WATERSHED, VA                     950,000         100,000         250,000  ..............         250,000  ..............  
    (E)RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, EMBREY DAM, VA                      825,000         100,000         200,000  ..............         200,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                          WASHINGTON                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)BLAIR WATERWAY, TACOMA HARBOR, WA                     3,341,000  ..............  ..............         176,000  ..............  ..............  
    (N)BLAIR WATERWAY, TACOMA HARBOR, WA                       427,000         378,000          49,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  
       CHEHALIS RIVER, WA                                      250,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         250,000  ..............  
    (E)DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA                    1,117,000         689,000         428,000  ..............         428,000  ..............  
   (FC)HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA                                11,250,000         200,000  ..............         600,000  ..............         600,000  
  (RCP)LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA                          799,000         398,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
       OCEAN SHORES, WA                                        100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
       TRICITIES AREA, WA                                      550,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         550,000  ..............  
    (N)PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES, WA               2,124,000         919,000         665,000  ..............         665,000  ..............  
  (FDP)RODEO LAKE, OTHELLO, WA                                 100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  
  (FDP)SKAGIT RIVER, WA                                      2,548,000       1,094,000         678,000  ..............         678,000  ..............  
    (E)STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA                           955,000         540,000         156,000  ..............         156,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                        WEST VIRGINIA                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)CHEAT RIVER BASIN, BEAVER CREEK ENVIRON                 877,000         392,000         215,000  ..............         215,000  ..............  
        RESTORATION, W                                                                                                                                  
    (E)CHEAT RIVER BASIN, SOVERN RUN ENVIRON                   800,000         563,000         137,000  ..............         137,000  ..............  
        RESTORATION, WV                                                                                                                                 
       ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV                               700,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............  
    (N)KANAWHA RIVER NAVIGATION, WV                         13,000,000      11,671,000         800,000  ..............         800,000  ..............  
       LOWER MUD RIVER, WV                                     500,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............  
  (FDP)MERCER COUNTY, WV                                       800,000         100,000         350,000  ..............         350,000  ..............  
   (FC)NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER ENVIRON RESTORATION,       7,800,000  ..............  ..............         240,000  ..............         240,000  
        WV, MD                                                                                                                                          
  (FDP)NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER ENVIRON RESTORATION,       1,375,000       1,306,000          69,000  ..............          69,000  ..............  
        WV, MD                                                                                                                                          
    (E)TYGART THREE-WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,           445,000         175,000         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
        FORDS RU                                                                                                                                        
    (E)TYGART THREE-WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,           650,000         363,000         287,000  ..............         287,000  ..............  
        MAPLE RU                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)WEST VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN         2,000,000         400,000  ..............  ..............         624,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                           WYOMING                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY                          1,482,000       1,280,000         202,000  ..............         202,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                        MISCELLANEOUS                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
       COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION                    ..............  ..............       1,500,000  ..............       1,500,000  ..............  
       ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES                       ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
       FLOOD DAMAGE DATA                                ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............         500,000  ..............  
       FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES                  ..............  ..............       9,400,000  ..............       9,400,000  ..............  
       HYDROLOGIC STUDIES                               ..............  ..............         600,000  ..............         600,000  ..............  
       INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES                      ..............  ..............       1,900,000  ..............       1,900,000  ..............  
       OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS                      ..............  ..............       8,400,000  ..............       8,400,000  ..............  
       PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES                    ..............  ..............       5,300,000  ..............       7,500,000  ..............  
       PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER          ..............  ..............         450,000  ..............         450,000  ..............  
        SERVICE)                                                                                                                                        
       REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM     ..............  ..............         400,000  ..............         400,000  ..............  
        SUPPORT                                                                                                                                         
       RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT                         ..............  ..............      30,000,000  ..............      30,000,000  ..............  
       SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS     ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............         100,000  ..............  
       STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY)           ..............  ..............         900,000  ..............         900,000  ..............  
       TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS                           ..............  ..............         850,000  ..............         850,000  ..............  
       TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER           ..............  ..............         650,000  ..............         650,000  ..............  
       REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE   ..............  ..............     -25,777,000  ..............     -24,377,000  ..............  
                                                       =================================================================================================
             TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS                 123,151,000      26,849,000     136,376,000      29,014,000                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         TYPE OF PROJECT:                                                                                                                               
           (N)  NAVIGATION                                                                                                                              
           (BE)  BEACH EROSION CONTROL                                                                                                                  
           (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL                                                                                                                          
           (MP)  MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER                                                                                                          
           (SP)  SHORELINE PROTECTION                                                                                                                   
           (FDP)  FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION                                                                                                               
           (RCP)  REVIEW OF COMPLETED PROJECT                                                                                                           
           (RDP)  REVIEW OF DEFERRED PROJECT                                                                                                            
           (COMP)  COMPREHENSIVE                                                                                                                        
           (SPEC)  SPECIAL                                                                                                                              

    Alabama River below Claiborne lock and dam, Alabama.--The 
Committee has recommended an appropriation of $200,000 for the 
Corps to undertake feasibility studies for measures to improve 
the reliability of the navigation channel in the Alabama River 
below the Claiborne Dam. This study is essential if the lower 
Alabama River area is to realize the full economic potential of 
the Alabama River navigation project.
    Anchorage Harbor deepening, Alaska.--The Committee has 
included $100,000 for the Corps to complete the reconnaissance 
study for deepening Anchorage Harbor, AK.
    Brevig Mission, AK.--An amount of $200,000 is provided for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility studies for 
harbor improvements at Brevig Mission, AK.
    Chandalar River watershed, Alaska.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a 
reconnaissance study of the hydrology and water resource 
management problems in the Chandalar River watershed in Alaska.
    Naknek River watershed, Alaska.--An appropriation of 
$100,000 is included for a reconnaissance study of the 
hydrology and other conditions affecting fisheries Naknek River 
watershed downstream of King Salmon and Kvichak Bay in Alaska.
    Nome Harbor, AK.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$16,000 over the budget request for the Nome Harbor project in 
Alaska for the Corps to expedite completion of the 
preconstruction engineering design at the harbor.
    Seward Harbor, AK.--An appropriation of $225,000, an 
increase of $75,000, is recommended for the Corps of Engineers 
to complete preconstruction engineering design on the Seward, 
AK, harbor project.
    Thomas Basin Harbor improvements, Alaska.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $100,000 for the Corps to undertake a 
reconnaissance study of possible navigation and harbor 
improvements at Thomas basin in Alaska.
    Valdez Harbor, AK.--An additional amount of $100,000 over 
the budget request has been included for the Corps to expedite 
the feasibility phase of expanding the harbor at Valdez, AK.
    Mare Island Strait dredging expansion, California.--The 
Committee has included $100,000 for the Corps to initiate and 
complete a reconnaissance study to determine the feasibility of 
Federal participation in dredging and maintaining channels on 
the eastern shore of Mare Island Strait in California.
    Napa Valley watershed management, California.--Funding of 
$100,000 is recommended for the Napa Valley Watershed 
Management study in California. This reconnaissance study is 
needed to identify solutions to water management issues on the 
Napa River and tributaries upstream of the city of Napa, CA.
    Santa Margarita River and tributaries (Murrieta Creek), 
CA.--The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$400,000 over the budget request for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete feasibility studies for flood control on Murrieta 
Creek.
    Tuolumne River and tributaries, California.--An amount of 
$200,000 is recommended for the Tuolumnue River and tributaries 
study in California for the Corps to complete the 
reconnaissance phase and continue into the feasibility phase. 
The study will enable the Corps to investigate the feasibility 
of identified options for increased flood control protection 
and other benefits.
    White River, Poso, and Deer Creeks, CA.--The Committee has 
included $100,000 for the Corps to initiate a reconnaissance 
study of the need for providing flood protection along the 
White River, Poso and Deer Creeks in the area of Earlimart, CA, 
in Tulare and Kern Counties.
    Rehoboth and Dewey Beaches, DE.--The Committee has provided 
$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to advance preconstruction 
engineering design of the Rehoboth and Dewey Beaches portion of 
the Delaware coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, DE, 
project.
    Bethany Beach to South Bethany Beach, DE.--Funding of 
$100,000 is recommended for the Corps to undertake 
preconstruction engineering and design on the Bethany Beach to 
South Bethany Beach portion of the Delaware coast from Cape 
Henlopen to Fenwick Island, DE, project.
    Fort Pierce shore protection, St. Lucie County, FL.--An 
amount of $300,000 has been provided for the Corps to complete 
a general reevaluation report for extending the authorized Fort 
Pierce, FL, shore protection project.
    Lido Key, Sarasota County, FL.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $300,000 for the Corps to complete the 
feasibility study for the Lido Key, Sarasota County, FL, 
project.
    St. Augustine Beach, FL.--Funding of $300,000 has been 
included for the Corps to complete the general reevaluation 
report for the St. Augustine Beach project in Florida.
    Savannah River Basin comprehensive water resources study, 
Georgia and South Carolina.--An amount of $300,000, the full 
budget request, is recommended for the Corps to continue the 
comprehensive study to address the current and future needs for 
flood damage prevention and reduction, water supply, and other 
related water resource needs in the Savannah River basin in 
Georgia and South Carolina. The study is to be limited to an 
analysis of water resource issues that fall within the 
traditional civil works mission of the Corps.
    Hilo Harbor, HI.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$100,000 for the Corps to initiate an expedited reconnaissance 
study of improvements at Hilo Harbor, HI. The study will 
include identification of possible modifications, determination 
of Federal interest, and preparation of a project study plan.
    Kahului Harbor, HI.--An amount of $100,000 is provided for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate an expedited reconnaissance 
study which would determine whether there is Federal interest 
in modifying the Kahului Deep Draft Harbor, HI, to increase 
cargo transportation efficiency and to prepare a plan of study.
    Indian Creek, Council Bluffs, IA.--An appropriation of 
$100,000 is recommended for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
and complete the reconnaissance phase of the Indian Creek, 
Council Bluffs, IA, study. The study will determine the flood 
hazard associated with Indian Creek and develop alternative to 
mitigate this hazards.
    Upper Mississippi River navigation study, Illinois and 
Iowa.--The Committee has provided the full budget request of 
$5,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the Upper 
Mississippi River navigation study. Given the importance of 
this study, the Corps should take appropriate steps to maintain 
the current completion schedule.
    Greenup, KY, flood damage reduction.--The recommendation 
includes $100,000 for the Corps to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study to determine the feasibility of flood 
damage reduction measures along the Ohio River at Greenup, KY.
    Paducah, KY.--The Committee has included $100,000 for a 
reconnaissance study, including a full condition analysis and 
identification of costs and priorities for updating, replacing 
or modifying major project features in the vicinity of Paducah, 
KY.
    Calcasieu Lock, LA.--The recommendation includes $100,000 
for the Corps to conduct a reconnaissance study to determine 
the feasibility and advisability of modifying the Calcasieu 
lock, Louisiana, to reduce navigation traffic congestion.
    Chesapeake Bay integrated ecosystem and Atlantic coast 
shelf model, Maryland.--An appropriation of $500,000 is 
recommended for the Chesapeake Bay integrated ecosystem and 
Atlantic coast shelf model study to allow the Corps of 
Engineers to support the development and integration of this 
regional model of comprehensive hydrodynamic and water quality 
simulation in the near-coastal Atlantic and the Chesapeake Bay.
    Eastern Shore, Maryland.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps to initiate a reconnaissance study of 
the water resources problems in watersheds of the Eastern Shore 
of Maryland. The Committee understands that the area is 
experiencing a variety of problems with its water resources 
including the outbreak of Pfiesteria which has resulted in the 
closure of several rivers recently. Given its expertise in 
watershed management, the Committee believes the Corps of 
Engineers can provide invaluable assistance in assessing 
coastal and riparian changes and processes, and evaluating 
needed improvements to address this problem.
    Ocean City and vicinity, Assateague Island, MD.--The 
Committee directs the Corps to use available funds to complete 
the preconstruction engineering and design of the Assateague 
Island mitigation project in an effort to keep the project 
moving forward until construction funding is available.
    Sault Ste. Marie, replacement lock, Michigan.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to begin preparation of the general design memorandum 
for a replacement lock at Sault Ste. Marie, MI.
    Kansas City, MO.--The Committee has included $545,000 for 
the Kansas City, MO, reconnaissance study which is comprised of 
seven separable levee units, encompasses two States and two 
major rivers, and has multiple sponsors. Due to the large study 
area, the complexities, and the large number of interest, the 
Committee directs that the study not be limited to the 1 year 
constraint for a reconnaissance study and that the study be 
schedules for completion by the end of fiscal year 1999.
    Truckee meadows, Nevada.--The recommendation includes 
$1,700,000 for the Truckee meadows, Nevada study, an increase 
of $1,200,000 over the budget request. The additional funding 
is provided for the Corps to expedite completion of the 
preconstruction engineering and design of this much needed 
flood control project.
    Walker River basin, NV.--A total of $400,000 has been 
included for the Corps to accelerate completion of the 
feasibility study of the Walker River basin, Nevada study which 
is addressing flood control and other issues in the Walker 
River basin.
    Devils Lake, ND.--An appropriation of $300,000 the full 
budget request, has been included for the Corps to expedite 
work on the Devils Lake, ND, feasibility study for lake 
stabilization. The Committee urges the Corps to work 
cooperatively with the Bureau of Reclamation, the State of 
North Dakota, other interested parties, and Canada in this 
effort. The Committee expects the study will address all 
aspects of the project set out in the study evaluation.
    Rhode Island ecosystem restoration study, Rhode Island.--
The Committee has recommended $200,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to conduct reconnaissance level studies of the 
opportunities to restore degraded salt marshes, restore 
anadromous fisheries, restore degraded freshwater wetlands, and 
improve overall fish and wildlife habitats in the Pawcatuck 
River and Pawcatuck River watershed; and the Mohassuck River, 
Ten Mile River, and the Woonasquatucket River watersheds.
    Davidson County, TN.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$100,000 for the Corps to conduct a reconnaissance study of the 
flooding problems in the Nashville area of Davidson County, TN.
    Nolichucky watershed, Tennessee.--An amount of $100,000 has 
been provided for the Corps to initiate the feasibility study 
for flood control and environmental restoration in the 
Nolichucky watershed in the east Tennessee counties of Greene, 
Washington, and Unicoi.
    Blair Waterway, Tacoma Harbor, WA.--The Committee 
understands that the scope of this Blair Waterway, Tacoma 
Harbor, WA, study has been significantly reduced and that the 
current project falls within the scope of the Corps' section 
107, continuing authorities program. Therefore, the funding 
requested under the ``General investigation'' account has not 
been provided, and the project is addressed in the 
construction, general program.
    Rodeo Lake, Othello, WA.--The Committee has included 
$100,000 for the Corps to undertake a reconnaissance study of 
flooding from Rodeo Lake at Othello, WA. The study will address 
alternatives to alleviate flooding and to stabilize water 
levels at the lake.
    Tri Cities area, Washington.--An appropriation not to 
exceed $550,000 is recommended for the NEPA and CERCLA costs 
associated with land conveyance pursuant to section 501(i) of 
Public Law 104-303, the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996.
    West Virginia statewide flood protection plan.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $624,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to complete ongoing feasibility studies to identify 
flood prone areas, formulate potential flood protection 
measures, address project implementation requirements, and 
prioritize needed studies, programs, and projects into a long-
term strategy for addressing flood protection in the State of 
West Virginia.
    Flood plain management services.--The Committee is aware of 
advanced technologies which may provide significant advantages 
over traditional methods of gathering and updating data on 
floods and flood damage potential. These technologies, 
including laser and microwave radiometry, offer highly detailed 
models of flood plains with the potential of being invaluable 
to planning and implementation of flood prevention and 
floodproofing measures, and mitigating flood hazards through 
better use of land within the flood plain. In addition, these 
technologies, coupled with soil moisture maps derived utilizing 
microwave rediometers, will give all agencies involved with 
flood prevention and control, data analysis tools superior to 
currently used methods.
    The Committee recommends the Corps work closely with the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency in an effort to utilize the 
same technologies to product data sets, thus enabling the two 
agencies to better coordinate their work and provide a superior 
product for use by decisionmakers.
    Planning assistance to States.--The Committee has provided 
$7,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers' planning assistance to 
States program. The increase over the budget request is 
recommended to reduce the backlog of work and to address the 
growing demand for technical assistance and guidance by the 
from the Corps. The Committee recommendation includes $175,000 
for various studies in Alaska, including completion of the 
Kivilina relocation, erosion and flooding studies with the 
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, economic 
studies with the Alaska Department of Transportation related to 
harbor development, and studies with Alaska rural villages. 
Funding of $500,000 is also included for the Corps to provide 
geographic information system assistance to the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania for the purpose of watershed modeling and 
management. An amount of $100,000 is included for the Corps to 
review the Lake Champlain basin pollution prevention, control 
and restoration plan to determine what actions may be taken by 
the Corps to support the plan. This work shall be undertaken in 
cooperation with the Lake Champlain Basin Program, the States 
of Vermont and New York, and participating Federal agencies.
    Other coordination programs.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $300,000, the full budget request, for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue to participate as a stakeholder in the 
interagency ecosystem management task force's Pacific Northwest 
forest case study with responsibility to restore, sustain, and 
develop coordinated watershed ecosystem management strategies 
for species viability on all public lands.
    Also included in the Committee recommendation is the full 
budget request for the Corps to support the International Joint 
Commission's study of ways to reduce flood damages along the 
Red River. The Committee understands that the United States and 
Canada have agreed to a cooperative effort to determine ways to 
prevent future flooding.

                         construction, general

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $1,473,373,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     784,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,248,068,000

    An appropriation of $1,248,068,000 is recommended for 
ongoing construction activities.

                  Budget Impacts and Program Execution

    The Committee is convinced that the administration's budget 
request of $784,000,000 for the fiscal year 1999 construction 
program, over $1,000,000,000 below the efficient rate of 
funding, was formulated without consideration of the 
administration's own priorities, policies, or budget objectives 
and worse, cannot be executed without significant contract 
terminations. In fact, if the President's budget were enacted, 
the additional financial burden on the American taxpayers would 
be a staggering $400,000,000 in increased costs and over 
$3,900,000,000 in benefits foregone. Further, the constraints 
that the administration has imposed, both through the ill-
advised fiscal year 1998 apportionment restrictions on 
contracting and forced contract terminations, have delayed 
execution of the fiscal year 1998 program and cost taxpayers 
and non-Federal local sponsors additional financial burdens. 
This budget was truly dead on arrival and the Committee has 
spent inordinate amounts of time restructuring a budget that is 
implementable and will keep the commitments to local sponsors 
who are also paying for these projects.
    This Committee has traditionally supported the cost-sharing 
initiatives that the administration has proposed to allow the 
program to continue. However, the President's budget fails to 
recognize that once a project cooperation agreement, which this 
administration so eagerly and publicly enters into, has been 
signed, the administration has a commitment to complete the 
project in the most efficient and least costly manner. It is 
inconceivable to leave such a financial hardship on the 
Government's partner in water resource construction as would 
have been imposed by the President's request. In addition, the 
administration's proposed construction budget fails to 
recognize the importance of investments in the water resources 
infrastructure as an investment in the future of the Nation. 
Many ongoing projects that are crucial to the Nation's economic 
security and competitiveness in the world economy had 
completion dated postponed as much as 10 years.
    The Committee has provided for a construction program that 
will allow contractors to move forward with the expectation of 
being paid for their completed work. However, the Committee has 
had to reduce the budgeted amounts for some projects and has 
not included any new construction starts for fiscal year 1999. 
Therefore, the Committee repeats its longstanding management 
policy for moving available resources from projects that are 
experiencing delays to those projects most in need of funding 
and directs the Corps to manage the construction program on a 
nationwide basis, moving available resources from projects that 
are experiencing delays to those projects most in need of 
funding. The Committee believes that good management, and 
cooperation of Corps district offices and non-Federal sponsors 
will be essential in limiting the impacts of insufficient 
funding.
    The Committee received numerous requests to include project 
authorizations in the energy and water development 
appropriations bill. However, in an effort to support and honor 
congressional authorizing committees jurisdiction, the 
Committee has not included new project authorizations.
    The Committee has included minor provisions which increase 
the cost ceiling for ongoing projects in order to prevent 
construction delays and associated increased costs.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

                                                        CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL                                                       
                                                                  [Amounts in dollars]                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of                                                                                    Total Federal   Allocated to       Budget         Committee  
project                                   Project title                                        cost            date          estimate     recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           ALABAMA                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, VICINITY OF JACKSO                               16,102,000       2,116,000         500,000         500,000  
   (MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH                             37,000,000  ..............       1,000,000  ..............  
   (MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB)                                  28,000,000       2,353,000       4,000,000       4,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                            ALASKA                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT                              ..............       5,000,000  ..............       5,000,000  
    (N)CHIGNIK HARBOR                                                                        5,500,000       4,672,000  ..............         748,000  
    (N)COOK INLET, AK                                                                        9,500,000       3,500,000  ..............       6,000,000  
    (N)KAKE HARBOR, AK                                                                      10,959,000       4,894,000       5,000,000       5,000,000  
    (N)ST. PAUL HARBOR                                                                      13,200,000       1,500,000  ..............       6,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           ARIZONA                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)CLIFTON, AZ                                                                          16,000,000      14,200,000       1,600,000       1,600,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           ARKANSAS                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
   (MP)DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, AR (MAJOR REHAB)                                 29,700,000      12,934,000       5,000,000       5,000,000  
    (N)MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR                                 632,500,000     603,989,000         550,000         550,000  
    (N)MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR                                                   242,000,000      40,735,000      19,000,000      50,000,000  
       RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK RESTORATION, AR                                            112,861,000     102,000,000  ..............       4,500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                          CALIFORNIA                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA                                                         47,600,000       7,971,000       1,000,000       9,000,000  
       AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHEAD (NATOMAS)                                                  28,500,000       5,500,000  ..............       5,000,000  
   (FC)CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA                                                               43,800,000      22,897,000         500,000         500,000  
   (FC)COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA                                                      43,300,000      32,635,000         100,000         100,000  
   (FC)GUADALUPE RIVER, CA                                                                  78,500,000      62,619,000       4,000,000       7,000,000  
    (N)HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA                                                          12,300,000       6,395,000       3,600,000       5,000,000  
   (FC)LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA                                                180,000,000      49,056,000      11,000,000      40,000,000  
    (N)LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CA                                                              116,200,000      43,415,000      12,000,000      45,000,000  
   (FC)LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                        3,910,000       2,958,000         952,000       3,200,000  
   (FC)MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                        29,400,000      28,654,000         746,000       5,746,000  
   (FC)MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA                                                            91,800,000      17,421,000         500,000         900,000  
   (FC)MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                             13,250,000      10,535,000       1,700,000       2,000,000  
       NORCO BLUFFS, CA                                                                      5,580,000       1,200,000  ..............       4,000,000  
       PORT OF LONG BEACH, CA                                                               17,000,000       6,385,000  ..............       4,000,000  
   (FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA                                        179,900,000     101,958,000       7,080,000       7,080,000  
   (FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA                               10,650,000       4,276,000         700,000       1,200,000  
   (FC)SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA                                                                13,150,000       3,515,000       2,800,000       3,500,000  
   (FC)SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA                                                        885,900,000     570,299,000      20,035,000      35,000,000  
   (FC)SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA                                                                22,100,000      14,029,000       2,700,000       4,000,000  
   (FC)UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                        4,800,000       4,224,000         400,000       1,000,000  
   (FC)WEST SACRAMENTO, CA                                                                  16,300,000      13,700,000       2,500,000       7,500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                         CONNECTICUT                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
       FAULKNER ISLAND, CT                                                                   4,500,000       1,500,000  ..............       2,600,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           DELAWARE                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
   (BE)DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE                                                        12,100,000       4,904,000         233,000         233,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           FLORIDA                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)CANAVERAL HARBOR DEEPENING, FL                                                        6,600,000       5,026,000         640,000       1,000,000  
   (FC)CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL                                                  1,444,100,000     462,042,000      40,800,000      25,000,000  
       DADE COUNTY, FL                                                                     163,300,000      61,818,000  ..............       2,500,000  
    (E)EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL                               75,000,000       9,392,000      20,000,000      10,000,000  
   (MP)JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R                             35,600,000       7,010,000       5,000,000       5,000,000  
    (E)KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL                                                                 247,400,000      34,188,000      27,300,000      10,000,000  
       MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL                                                             47,300,000      21,000,000  ..............       8,000,000  
       PANAMA CITY BEACHES, FL                                                              22,900,000       9,781,000  ..............       5,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           GEORGIA                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
   (MP)BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB)                                                  28,300,000         845,000       4,000,000       4,000,000  
   (MP)HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)                                    20,800,000      14,900,000       5,900,000       5,900,000  
   (MP)RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC                                           599,085,000     596,015,000       1,685,000       1,685,000  
   (MP)THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)                                    69,700,000      11,649,000       9,500,000       9,500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                            HAWAII                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR)                                        14,381,000         584,000         270,000         270,000  
    (N)MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI                                                              9,920,000       2,894,000         230,000         400,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           ILLINOIS                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR)                               22,270,000  ..............         700,000  ..............  
   (BE)CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL                                                               144,000,000      16,345,000       5,050,000       6,000,000  
   (FC)EAST ST LOUIS, IL                                                                    29,460,000      26,326,000         500,000         500,000  
       EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY (INTERIOR FLOOD CONTROL)                                  1,050,000         530,000  ..............         375,000  
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 24 PART 1, MISS RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH                             24,990,000       7,920,000       7,100,000       7,700,000  
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 24 PART 2, MISS RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH                             38,370,000  ..............       2,400,000  ..............  
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 25, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH                             22,394,000      13,034,000       4,900,000       5,500,000  
   (FC)LOVES PARK, IL                                                                       21,900,000      11,746,000         200,000         200,000  
   (FC)MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL                                                  491,000,000      22,374,000         900,000       2,500,000  
    (N)MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO                                                739,562,000     726,584,000       1,330,000       1,330,000  
       O'HARE RESERVOIR, IL                                                                 30,000,000      28,900,000  ..............       1,000,000  
    (N)OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, IL AND KY                                                  1,020,000,000     332,970,000      54,500,000      54,500,000  
    (N)UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MN, MO                              242,862,000     161,711,000      18,355,000      18,355,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           INDIANA                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)FORT WAYNE METROPOLITAN AREA, IN                                                     37,239,000      23,218,000       5,900,000       5,900,000  
   (FC)LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN                                                            119,000,000      56,470,000       4,000,000       4,000,000  
       INDIANAPOLIS CENTRAL WATERFROUNT, IN                                                 39,975,000      20,753,000  ..............       4,000,000  
   (FC)PATOKA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB)                                                         7,200,000  ..............       3,600,000  ..............  
       WABASH RIVER, NEW HARMONY, IN                                                         2,610,000         600,000  ..............       2,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                             IOWA                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 14, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)                                 21,000,000      12,378,000       4,400,000       4,400,000  
    (N)MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K                               79,100,000      36,089,000       1,391,000       8,000,000  
   (FC)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO                                      136,769,000      96,521,000         824,000       1,024,000  
   (FC)MUSCATINE ISLAND, IA                                                                  6,760,000       3,182,000         290,000       1,500,000  
   (FC)PERRY CREEK, IA                                                                      42,186,000      21,278,000       1,367,000       5,700,000  
   (FC)RED ROCK, LAKE RED ROCK, IA                                                          44,500,000       5,600,000  ..............         225,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                            KANSAS                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)ARKANSAS CITY, KS                                                                    26,200,000       4,808,000         300,000       4,000,000  
   (FC)WINFIELD, KS                                                                          8,100,000       3,779,000       2,330,000       2,330,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           KENTUCKY                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
   (MP)BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN                                             157,599,000     150,788,000         300,000       1,000,000  
   (FC)DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY)                                                          13,700,000       2,436,000         900,000         900,000  
       KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, KY                                                           266,500,000      12,983,000  ..............       7,500,000  
    (N)MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, KY AND IN                                                   268,000,000      20,076,000       1,000,000       4,500,000  
   (FC)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY                                              12,083,000       2,617,000       1,500,000       1,500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                          LOUISIANA                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)ALOHA--RIGOLETTE, LA                                                                  7,078,000       5,753,000         320,000       1,100,000  
   (FC)LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT                              506,000,000     369,442,000       5,676,000      10,000,000  
       LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN STORMWATER DISCHARGE, LA                                          22,500,000      10,596,000  ..............       6,000,000  
   (FC)LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)                                   80,000,000      70,401,000         250,000       1,500,000  
    (N)MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA                                                  622,000,000     106,822,000       2,000,000       2,000,000  
   (FC)NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)                                    169,000,000     141,609,000         500,000       1,000,000  
    (N)RED RIVER WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO SHREVEPORT, L                            1,886,847,000   1,686,969,000       5,392,000       9,900,000  
   (FC)SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA                                                             330,000,000      60,210,000      15,279,000      22,200,000  
   (FC)WEST BANK VICINITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LA                                               183,000,000      40,801,000       3,936,000       7,100,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           MARYLAND                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
    (E)ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC                                           12,000,000       5,916,000          36,000       2,000,000  
   (BE)ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD                                                                16,900,000  ..............       4,000,000  ..............  
   (BE)ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD                                                      270,300,000      34,231,000         100,000         100,000  
       CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM, MD                  10,000,000       1,000,000  ..............         500,000  
    (E)CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD                                                    2,500,000       1,469,000          23,000         543,000  
    (E)POPLAR ISLAND, MD                                                                   320,000,000      29,151,000         157,000       7,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                        MASSACHUSETTS                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)BOSTON HARBOR, MA                                                                    19,500,000       8,259,000          40,000       6,800,000  
   (FC)HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA (MAJOR REHAB)                                                 18,400,000       9,900,000       5,443,000       5,443,000  
   (FC)ROUGHANS POINT, REVERE, MA                                                            8,000,000       5,320,000       2,680,000       2,680,000  
   (FC)TOWN BROOK, QUINCY AND BRAINTREE, MA                                                 30,000,000      28,600,000          20,000         600,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                          MINNESOTA                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB)                                  12,400,000         750,000       6,200,000       6,200,000  
   (FC)MARSHALL, MN                                                                          7,350,000       2,302,000          40,000       1,700,000  
    (N)PINE RIVER DAM, CROSS LAKE, MN (DAM SAFETY)                                           9,610,000       1,903,000       1,487,000       1,487,000  
       STILLWATER, MN                                                                        8,700,000       3,652,000  ..............       1,500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                         MISSISSIPPI                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
       JACKSON COUNTY, MS                                                                   10,000,000       3,000,000  ..............       4,500,000  
    (E)NATCHEZ BLUFF, MS                                                                    19,549,000       8,500,000  ..............       5,000,000  
    (N)PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS                                                                18,588,000         958,000  ..............      10,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           MISSOURI                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO                                                 196,000,000     108,683,000       9,600,000      12,600,000  
   (FC)CAPE GIRARDEAU, JACKSON, MO                                                          35,187,000      27,698,000         400,000       1,500,000  
   (FC)MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO                                           17,926,000       9,334,000       1,980,000       3,200,000  
    (N)MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO                              272,000,000     187,537,000       1,200,000       2,000,000  
   (FC)ST GENEVIEVE, MO                                                                     33,858,000       8,569,000       4,617,000       5,700,000  
   (MP)TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY)                                              60,200,000       2,431,000       2,650,000       2,650,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           NEBRASKA                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD                                      21,000,000       2,249,000         125,000         125,000  
   (FC)WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE                                                          9,969,000       1,850,000          69,000       2,300,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                            NEVADA                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV                                                   178,500,000      47,811,000      12,295,000      23,295,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                          NEW JERSEY                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
   (BE)CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ                                                 83,800,000      16,988,000          60,000       1,900,000  
   (BE)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ                                           367,000,000      32,351,000         150,000         150,000  
   (FC)MOLLY ANN'S BROOK AT HALEDON, PROSPECT PARK AND PATERS                               20,600,000      16,430,000       4,170,000       4,170,000  
    (N)NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY CHANN                             16,975,000       2,940,000         300,000         300,000  
   (FC)PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N                               14,800,000       3,787,000         200,000       1,200,000  
   (FC)RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ                                                           9,300,000       4,574,000          75,000       1,500,000  
       RARITAIN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUBBASIN, NJ                                      243,000,000      26,900,000  ..............       7,200,000  
   (BE)SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ                                                  1,026,000,000      93,278,000       3,300,000      13,300,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                          NEW MEXICO                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)ABIQUIU DAM EMERGENCY GATES, NM                                                       6,200,000       2,631,000       3,569,000       3,569,000  
   (FC)ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM                                                       66,000,000      12,325,000         150,000         600,000  
   (FC)ALAMOGORDO, NM                                                                       34,800,000       4,676,000         300,000         300,000  
   (FC)GALISTEO DAM, NM (DAM SAFETY)                                                         8,300,000       3,699,000       2,000,000       3,000,000  
   (FC)LAS CRUCES, NM                                                                        6,600,000         980,000         150,000       3,000,000  
   (FC)MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE                               46,800,000       8,907,000         510,000         510,000  
   (FC)RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE,                                59,500,000       4,183,000         300,000       1,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           NEW YORK                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
       ALTANTIC COAST OF LONG ISLAND, LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY                                 50,000,000       2,000,000  ..............       1,000,000  
   (BE)ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT,                               92,500,000      13,741,000         300,000       1,500,000  
   (BE)EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY,                               62,000,000      39,028,000         300,000       2,000,000  
   (BE)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY                                                329,330,000      30,021,000         200,000       1,000,000  
   (BE)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY                                              542,000,000      46,804,000       2,400,000       2,400,000  
    (N)KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY AND NJ                                     847,000,000     200,659,000      10,000,000      19,000,000  
       ORCHARD BEACH, NY                                                                     5,200,000         621,000  ..............       1,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                        NORTH CAROLINA                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)AIWW, REPLACEMENT OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGES, NC                                     75,630,000      55,231,000       6,000,000       6,000,000  
    (N)WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC                                                               242,600,000       6,350,000       5,300,000       8,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                         NORTH DAKOTA                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION, N                               40,030,000       2,869,000       2,000,000       5,000,000  
   (FC)DEVILS LAKE EMERGENCY OUTLET, ND                                                     29,000,000      10,000,000      16,000,000       8,000,000  
   (MP)GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB)                                       37,142,000         859,000         274,000         274,000  
   (FC)HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY)                                                          14,900,000       1,211,000         750,000         750,000  
   (FC)LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND (DAM SAFETY)                                     14,700,000      14,201,000         499,000         499,000  
   (FC)LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND (MAJOR REHAB)                                     7,800,000       5,619,000       1,000,000       1,000,000  
   (FC)SHEYENNE RIVER, ND                                                                   28,000,000      23,122,000         400,000         400,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                             OHIO                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)BEACH CITY LAKE, MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH (DAM SAFETY                                3,400,000         571,000         200,000         200,000  
   (FC)HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH                                                      3,896,000       2,765,000       1,131,000       1,131,000  
   (FC)METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH                                    12,574,000       2,348,000         669,000         669,000  
   (FC)MILL CREEK, OH                                                                      163,000,000      99,712,000         700,000         700,000  
   (FC)WEST COLUMBUS, OH                                                                    82,758,000      48,897,000       1,800,000       7,500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           OKLAHOMA                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)MINGO CREEK, TULSA, OK                                                               75,400,000      69,072,000       6,328,000       6,328,000  
   (FC)SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)                                                        9,500,000  ..............         500,000         500,000  
   (MP)TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)                                                37,100,000       1,962,000          25,000       4,500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                            OREGON                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                        
   (MP)BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB)                              89,100,000      22,899,000       8,000,000       8,000,000  
   (MP)COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA                                75,100,000      18,666,000       1,700,000       3,800,000  
   (FC)ELK CREEK LAKE, OR                                                                  174,000,000     114,911,000         300,000         800,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                         PENNSYLVANIA                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHAB)                                                          32,664,000       8,907,000       4,450,000       4,450,000  
   (FC)LACKAWANNA RIVER, OLYPHANT, PA                                                        9,800,000       3,039,000          50,000          50,000  
   (FC)LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA                                                       51,850,000       8,924,000         100,000         100,000  
    (N)LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA                                    705,000,000      54,154,000       4,500,000      23,000,000  
   (BE)PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT)                                               58,835,000      16,253,000         500,000         500,000  
   (FC)SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA                                                         10,575,000       2,678,000         400,000       1,200,000  
   (FC)WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING)                                                  108,300,000      37,718,000       3,250,000       7,500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                         PUERTO RICO                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR                                                     422,617,000     373,346,000       6,082,000       7,200,000  
   (FC)RIO DE LA PLATA, PR                                                                  63,300,000       4,915,000         426,000       3,000,000  
   (FC)RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR                                                                322,100,000      41,018,000       7,052,000       9,800,000  
    (N)SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR                                                                  34,400,000       4,323,000         500,000       3,300,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                        SOUTH CAROLINA                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
       CHARLESTON HARBOR DEEPENING                                                          98,539,000       2,318,000  ..............      17,000,000  
    (N)COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC                                                 207,791,000     204,177,000         500,000         500,000  
   (BE)MYRTLE BEACH, SC                                                                    140,535,000      30,710,000       3,000,000       3,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                         SOUTH DAKOTA                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD                                                     27,800,000       1,518,000       2,200,000  ..............  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                            TEXAS                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
       BRAYS BAYOU, TX                                                                     268,000,000       6,000,000  ..............       3,000,000  
    (N)CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX                                                              24,430,000      12,582,000       1,560,000       1,560,000  
   (FC)CLEAR CREEK, TX                                                                      75,323,000      21,597,000       1,770,000       1,770,000  
   (FC)EL PASO, TX                                                                         114,800,000      97,991,000         400,000       3,000,000  
    (N)HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX                                           321,641,000      39,043,000       5,220,000      38,000,000  
   (FC)MCGRATH CREEK, WICHITA FALLS, TX                                                     11,050,000       9,536,000       1,514,000       1,514,000  
   (FC)SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX                                                 152,600,000     150,852,000         800,000         800,000  
   (FC)SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                                                             209,820,000      61,946,000       9,450,000      10,800,000  
   (FC)WACO LAKE, TX (DAM SAFETY)                                                            6,260,000       2,326,000         500,000       1,500,000  
       WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX                                                                 66,300,000  ..............  ..............       8,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                             UTAH                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UT                                                                9,660,000       2,276,000         200,000       1,500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                           VIRGINIA                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
    (N)AIWW, BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA                                                     23,100,000       3,394,000         393,000       3,000,000  
       LYNCHBURG COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA                                                20,000,000         939,000  ..............       1,000,000  
    (N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA                                         137,496,000      22,521,000         420,000         420,000  
   (FC)ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA                                       23,900,000       5,164,000         200,000       1,000,000  
       RICHMOND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA                                                 20,000,000       1,000,000  ..............       1,000,000  
       VIRGINIA BEACH, VA                                                                  247,300,000      29,000,000  ..............      20,000,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                          WASHINGTON                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
   (MP)COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID                                     1,376,217,000     468,633,000     117,000,000      95,000,000  
   (MP)LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR                            232,000,000     228,205,000         650,000         650,000  
   (MP)THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH                             94,000,000       5,580,000         900,000       3,050,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                        WEST VIRGINIA                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
       GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV                                                           12,000,000       1,409,000  ..............       1,000,000  
   (FC)LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V                            1,759,337,000     665,799,000       3,000,000      41,800,000  
    (N)LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV (MAJOR REHAB)                                20,200,000       1,214,000       1,700,000  ..............  
    (N)MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV                                                      286,700,000      11,569,000       1,500,000       4,000,000  
    (N)ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, WV AND OH                                              363,474,000     334,396,000       7,000,000       8,700,000  
   (FC)TYGART LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)                                                          8,200,000       1,849,000       2,400,000       2,400,000  
    (N)WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, WV                                                          221,600,000     212,348,000       4,500,000       4,500,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                          WISCONSIN                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
       LAFARGE LAKE, KICKAPOO RIVER, WI                                                     17,000,000         764,000  ..............       1,000,000  
   (FC)PORTAGE, WI                                                                           7,590,000       4,391,000       3,199,000       3,199,000  
                                                                                                                                                        
                                        MISCELLANEOUS                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
       AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM                                                    ..............  ..............       2,000,000       4,000,000  
       AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)                                      ..............  ..............       2,000,000       6,000,000  
       BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 103)                                     ..............  ..............       2,600,000       2,600,000  
       BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204)                                ..............  ..............         200,000         200,000  
       CLEARING AND SNAGGING PROJECT (SECTION 208)                                      ..............  ..............         100,000         100,000  
       DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM                                     ..............  ..............       2,000,000       7,000,000  
       EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14)                          ..............  ..............      15,000,000      15,000,000  
       EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION                                                          ..............  ..............      18,289,000      18,289,000  
       FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)                                             ..............  ..............      26,500,000      32,000,000  
       INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE                                      ..............  ..............          45,000          45,000  
       INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE                                      ..............  ..............         185,000         185,000  
       NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111)                                      ..............  ..............         100,000         100,000  
       NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107)                                                ..............  ..............       2,700,000       8,000,000  
       PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME                           ..............  ..............       5,300,000      15,000,000  
       RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGA                           ..............  ..............      25,000,000  ..............  
       REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE                                   ..............  ..............     -32,388,000     -35,238,000  
                                                                                       =================================================================
             TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL                                                ..............  ..............     784,000,000   1,248,068,000  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TYPE OF PROJECT:                                                                                                                                 
           (N)  NAVIGATION                                                                                                                              
           (BE)  BEACH EROSION CONTROL                                                                                                                  
           (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL                                                                                                                          
           (MP)  MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER                                                                                                          

    Cook Inlet, AK.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$6,000,000 for the Cook Inlet project in Alaska. The funding 
will allow the Corps of Engineers to complete the project. The 
Committee is aware that the current cost estimate for the 
project exceeds the authorized level and that the project 
cannot proceed without an increase in the project cost ceiling. 
In a effort to reduce delay and because the project can be 
completed in a single construction season, the Committee has 
recommended a provision in the bill to provide the required 
cost ceiling increase.
    Environmental infrastructure, Alaska.--The Committee has 
included $5,000,000, the same amount as provided for the 
current year, to continue the cost shared environmental 
infrastructure program in Alaska. In addition to allowing the 
Corps of Engineers to address serious water, wastewater, and 
other infrastructure issues, attention of the Corps is directed 
to the need to help with many other rural issues including bulk 
fuel storage, rural power, erosion control, and comprehensive 
utility planning.
    St. Paul Harbor, AK.--An appropriation of $6,000,000 is 
recommended for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
of the St. Paul Harbor, AK, project in fiscal year 1999. The 
Committee directs the Corps to use the funds appropriated for 
fiscal year 1998 and the appropriations provided herein to 
award a continuing contract and proceed expeditiously to 
complete the project.
    McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system (Montgomery 
Point lock and dam), Arkansas.--The bill includes $50,000,000 
for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project. This 
is $31,000,000 over the amount requested in the budget for 
fiscal year 1999 will allow the Corps to proceed with 
construction on a more efficient schedule.
    Red River emergency bank protection, Arkansas.--An 
appropriation of $4,500,000 is included in the bill for the 
Corps of Engineers to fully fund construction of Canale Dikes, 
and Black Lake revetment along the Red River, AR. The Committee 
supports efforts to develop new methods to meet emergency 
streambank protection needs along the Red River.
    Los Angeles County drainage area, California.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $40,000,000 for the Los 
Angeles County drainage area flood control project in 
California. The budget request of $11,000,000 for the project 
is completely insufficient to maintain the construction 
schedule and would result in as much as a 5-year delay in 
project completion. Such a delay would result in $200,000,000 
loss in potential flood control benefits and an additional 
$130,000,000 in increased flood insurance premiums for the 
area.
    Los Angeles Harbor, CA.--An appropriation of $45,000,000 is 
recommended for the Los Angeles Harbor project in California. 
This is $33,000,000 over the budget for fiscal year 1998. The 
Committee understands that the Corps of Engineers could utilize 
$69,000,000 to maintain optimum progress on this project which 
contributes billions of dollars to the national economy through 
export and import of goods, direct and indirect employment, and 
associated economic activity generated in the region. However, 
because of the Administration's totally inadequate budget 
request, the Committee is unable to provide the full amount 
required for 1999. The recommendation includes reimbursement to 
the local sponsor as appropriate.
    Marysville/Yuba City, CA.--An amount of $5,746,000 has been 
included by the Committee to continue work on flood control 
levee work in the Marysville and Yuba City area of California. 
The Committee understands that a levee break during the January 
1997 flood caused loss of life and substantial property damage 
in the area. The Committee believes that the totally inadequate 
funding request for fiscal year 1999 leaves the area in 
jeopardy to flooding and has, therefore, provided additional 
funding for fiscal year 1999.
    Faulkner Island, CT.--Funding in the amount of $2,600,000 
is provided for the Corps to complete the construction of the 
Faulkner Island Lighthouse shoreline protection project in 
Connecticut.
    Central and southern Florida.--The Committee has provide 
$25,000,000 for the central and southern Florida project. The 
Upper St. John's portion of the project has not been reduced 
from that proposed in the President's budget.
    Dade County, FL.--The Committee has included $2,500,000 to 
continue the Dade County, FL, beach erosion control project, 
including project modifications at Sunny Isles and other 
activities related to advancing the project.
    Miami Harbor Channel, FL.--An appropriation of $8,000,000 
is provided for the Miami Harbor Channel, Florida project to 
initiate a general reevaluation report to determine the 
feasibility of additional channel deepening, and to provide 
reimbursement to local sponsors as appropriate.
    Panama City Beaches, FL.--Funding in the amount of 
$5,000,000 has been included for the Panama City Beaches 
project in Florida. The funds will be used to reimburse the 
local sponsor for the Federal share of construction costs. The 
Committee understands that the State and local officials 
believe that the restoration of hurricane protection for the 
area is essential and are proceeding to construct the project 
under authorities which allow reimbursement.
    Chicago Shoreline, IL.--The Committee has provided 
$6,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget request, 
for the Chicago Shoreline project in Illinois. The recommended 
funding will be used to complete construction of reach 5, and 
to continue construction and design in reaches 2 and 4. If 
additional funding is needed in fiscal year 1999 the Corps is 
urged to consider reprogramming actions as appropriate.
    McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the Corps to continue 
construction of the McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL, 
project. The budget request for fiscal year 1999 provided only 
$900,000 and resulted in an extended completion schedule. The 
funding recommended by the Committee will allow construction of 
this important project to proceed on a more efficient schedule.
    O'Hare Reservoir, IL.--An amount of $1,000,000 has been 
provided for the O'Hare Reservoir project in Illinois. The 
funding is provided to complete project construction, including 
payment of settled contractor claims as appropriate.
    Indianapolis central waterfront, Indiana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the Corps to continue 
construction of the Indianapolis central waterfront project in 
Indiana.
    Wabash River, New Harmony, IN.--An appropriation of 
$2,000,000 is recommended for the Wabash River, New Harmony 
flood control project in Indiana. The funding provided herein 
will be used to complete construction of this project which 
will provide critical flood protection to New Harmony, IN. 
Congress appropriated funding to begin construction in fiscal 
year 1998, but OMB refused to allow the Corps to award a 
contract for construction. This has resulted in extended delay 
in construction completion and in the area benefiting from this 
much needed flood protection.
    Missouri River Fish and Wildlife mitigation, Iowa, 
Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri.--The Committee recommendation 
for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation project 
provides $8,000,000 to continue critical fish and wildlife 
mitigation activities along the Missouri River. The budget 
request severely underfunded the project and the Committee 
recommendation will significantly advance the project 
completion schedule.
    Arkansas City, KS.--The Committee recognized the importance 
of the Arkansas City flood control project in Kansas and has 
provided $4,000,000 to continue construction of this critical 
project in fiscal year 1999.
    Kentucky lock and dam, Kentucky.--An appropriation of 
$7,500,000 is recommended for the Kentucky lock and dams 
replacement project. The Corps of Engineers budget request did 
not include continued funding which would result in 
unacceptable delays in the completion schedule for the project. 
The funding provided by the Committee will be used to continue 
design, relocation activities, and other essential work to 
accelerate the construction schedule.
    Lake Pontchartrain storm water discharge, Louisiana.--The 
Committee has included $6,000,000 to continue the construction 
and water quality monitoring activities of the Lake 
Pontchartrain storm water discharge project in Louisiana.
    Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity, Louisiana.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $10,000,000 for this project which 
is to be used by the Corps of Engineers to continue critical 
construction of parallel protection along Orleans and London 
Avenue Canals and other authorized fronting, drainage, and 
flood proofing features. It should be pointed out that the 
budget request was substantially below the amount needed by the 
Corps to keep the project on schedule. The amount recommended 
by the Committee will help mitigate the delays proposed in the 
budget.
    Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA.--
The Committee recognizes the need to refine the Red River 
Waterway navigation channel in order to ensure that it is 
reliable and safe, and to reduce maintenance dredging costs. 
Therefore, the Committee has recommended additional funding for 
fiscal year 1999 to undertake reinforcements, dikes, and 
capouts, and to continue design and construct measures 
necessary to provide for a safe, reliable, and efficient 
navigation channel.
    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection 
Program, Maryland.--Funding of $500,000 has been provided under 
the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection 
Program for the Corps of Engineers to provide design and 
construction assistance for water-related environmental 
infrastructure and resource protection and development projects 
affecting the Chesapeake Bay estuary. Budget constraint have 
limited the Committee's ability to recommend additional funding 
for this project in fiscal year 1999.
    Ocean City and vicinity, Assateague Island, MD.--The 
Committee is aware of the Corps' efforts to repair storm damage 
to the north end of Assateague Island and recognizes the 
importance of protecting this section of the island from the 
effects of storms until the mitigation project authorized in 
section 534 of Public Law 104-303 can be initiated. The 
Committee urges the Corps to carryout the work in a manner 
which compliments the mitigation project and will not interfere 
with the piping plover nesting season.
    Poplar Island, MD.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$7,000,000 for the Poplar Island project in Maryland. The 
budget request proposed only $157,000 to continue this project 
in fiscal year 1999. The Committee understands that issues 
which have delayed progress on this project have now been 
resolved and construction can proceed. The Committee expects 
the Corps to move to return the project to an orderly schedule 
and to make sufficient funding available to accomplish this 
task.
    Missouri River levee system, L-385, Missouri.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $400,000 for the Corps to 
proceed with completion of engineering and design for the L-385 
project and to begin construction of that portion of the 
project.
    Natchez Bluffs, MS.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of measures 
to prevent destruction of property and to reduce the threat of 
loss of life from bluff failures at Natchez Bluffs, MS. The 
funding included in the bill will be used to complete design 
and continue construction activities.
    Pascagoula Harbor, MS.--An appropriation of $10,000,000 is 
recommended for the Pascagoula Harbor, MS, project authorized 
by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. No funding was 
requested in the Corps' fiscal year 1999 budget, therefore, 
additional funding is needed to avoid significant delays and 
increased project costs.
    North Fork Border Monitoring Station, Montana.--The Corps 
is directed to use $40,000 of available funds to complete the 
reestablishment and of an operational monitoring station on the 
North Fork of the Flathead River in Montana for which funding 
was provided in last years bill.
    Acequias irrigation system, New Mexico.--The Committee is 
concerned with the progress being made on the Acequias 
irrigation system rehabilitation project in New Mexico. In an 
effort to resolve issues related to the project, the Committee 
expects the Corps to undertake efforts to strengthen its 
communication and coordination efforts with state and local 
interests; to explore ways to reduce or eliminate breaks in 
agreements; and to streamline its environmental and other 
documentation, where possible, so that work can be accomplished 
without disruption. The Committee has provided $600,000 to 
continue the project in fiscal year 1999.
    Wilmington Harbor channel widening, North Carolina.--The 
Committee has included $8,000,000, $2,700,000 over the budget 
request, to continue construction of the modified Wilmington 
Harbor project in fiscal year 1999. The recommended funding 
will be used to award a contract for mitigation and disposal 
areas, continue design of other project features, accomplish 
test blasting, and undertake environmental monitoring and 
documentation of structures for preblast conditions.
    Buford-Trenton irrigation district, North Dakota.--An 
appropriation of $5,000,000 is recommended for the Corps of 
Engineers for the Buford-Trenton Irrigation District project in 
North Dakota to complete the last of the land appraisals and 
continue acquisition of easements from willing sellers.
    Devils Lake, ND.--The Committee is aware that the city of 
Devils Lake faces a chronic flood emergency as a result of the 
dramatic rise of Devils Lake over the past 5 years. In response 
to this emergency, the Committee has provided $5,000,000 in 
additional funds for construction by the Corps of an emergency 
outlet. The Committee is prepared to approve a transfer of 
funds or to provide further funding in a supplemental 
appropriation if circumstances warrant more accelerated 
construction of the outlet. It is expected that such 
circumstances would also be such that granting of a waiver 
under the emergency provision of the National Environmental 
Policy Act would be appropriate and that the provision of the 
1909 Boundary Waters Treaty would be met.
    Orchard Beach, NY.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for the Corps to continue engineering and design, 
including borrow area investigations surveys, and NEPA analysis 
and coordination on the Orchard Beach project in New York. No 
funding was included in the Corps' budget for fiscal year 1999, 
therefore, follow-on funding is provided in order to mitigate 
completion schedule delays and cost increases.
    West Columbus, OH.--The budget request for fiscal year 1999 
for the West Columbus, OH, flood control project was 
$1,800,000, significantly below the amount needed by the Corps 
of Engineers to maintain anticipated schedules without extended 
delays. The Committee recommendation provides $7,500,000 for 
fiscal year 1999 in order to mitigate schedule delays and cost 
increases. The recommended funding will be used to complete 
construction of levee and floodwalls upstream of Town Street, 
initiate construction below Town Street, and undertake other 
related construction activities.
    Willamette temperature control device, Oregon.--The Army 
Corps of Engineers shall report to the appropriate committees 
of Congress by January 15, 1999, on the reasons the projected 
construction costs for the Willamette temperature control 
device, Oregon project, authorized under section 101(a)(25) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
303), have risen from $38,000,000 to over $77,000,000. The 
Corps will also outline the steps it is taking to control 
construction costs on the project, and whether--in light of 
these significant cost increases--it is looking at lower cost 
alternatives for achieving the temperature control goals at 
these reservoirs.
    Locks and dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, PA.--The 
budget request for the locks and dams 2, 3, and 4 project on 
the Monongahela River in Pennsylvania included only $5,000,000, 
$25,000,000 short of the $30,000,000 needed by the Corps to 
maintain an optimum construction schedule. The Committee 
understands that the locks are in an advanced state of 
deterioration and that the proposed budget request for fiscal 
year would severely impact the Corps' efforts to proceed with 
the project. Budget constraints have not allowed the Committee 
to recommend the full amount needed by the Corps. However, 
$23,000,000 is provided to continue ongoing activities, and to 
perform municipal relocations, complete the construction 
contract for abutment and lock riverwall adjustments, and to 
award the contract for the new lock 2, if possible.
    Schuykill River Park, PA.--The Committee directs the Corps 
to complete by December 1, 1998, the report referred to in 
subsection 564(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 regarding work to be performed by the Corps on the 
Schuykill River Park project.
    Brays Bayou, Houston, TX.--The Committee has provided 
$3,000,000 to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor a portion of 
the Federal share of the costs for completed construction of 
discreet segments of work for the Brays Bayou, TX, project 
which the Secretary of the Army has approved for reimbursement.
    North Padre Island flood protection and environmental 
restoration project, Texas.--The Committee understands that the 
North Padre Island flood protection and environmental 
restoration project will provide flood protection to thousands 
of residents of Nueces County, TX, as well as important 
economic and resource conservation benefits to the region. The 
Committee directs the Corps to continue and complete all 
studies necessary to evaluate the feasibility of this project, 
and to initiate preconstruction engineering and design 
activities.
    Columbia River juvenile fish mitigation, Washington, 
Oregon, and Idaho.--The Committee continues to support the 
Columbia River juvenile fish mitigation program and has 
provided $95,000,000, the same funding level that was provided 
for the current fiscal year, to continue the project in fiscal 
year 1999. The reduction below the budget request for fiscal 
year 1999 is made without prejudice and reflects overall budget 
constraints.
    The Committee is aware of a recent GAO audit which 
indicates that a significant portion of the Corps' fish 
mitigation work has experienced delays and cost overruns. The 
Committee believes this is unacceptable and directs the Corps 
to report to the Committee on actions the Corps will implement 
to correct the problems outlined by GAO.
    Last year, the conference committee requested the Northwest 
Power Planning Council's Independent Scientific Advisory Board 
[SAB] to conduct a review of the major fish mitigation capital 
construction activities proposed for implementation in the 
Columbia River Federal Power System. The first phase of the 
review is scheduled for completion by June 30. The Committee 
directs the Corps to not advertise or award any new 
construction contracts relating to the first phase of the 
ISAB's review prior to its completion. Pending Committee 
consideration of the review, the Committee may wish to revisit 
this issue during conference.
    The Committee recommendation supports the full amount 
requested for the Corps to undertake phase I only of the John 
Day Reservoir drawdown study as outlined in the Corps' scoping 
document and report dated February 11, 1998.
    Snake River Dam modifications, Washington.--The Committee 
is concerned about recent techniques employed by the Corps in 
attempting to determine the impacts of Snake River Dam removal 
on recreational river users. The use of financial incentives in 
surveying river users and the practice of misleading recipients 
of the survey are questionable. The Committee expects the Corps 
to work objectively in assessing the true impacts of any dam 
removal on the entire region.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland River, WV-KY-VA.--The Committee has provided a total 
of $41,800,000 for the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy 
River and Upper Cumberland River project.
    The Committee recommendation includes $10,500,000 to 
continue the Harlan, KY, element of the project; $1,500,000 for 
the Williamsburg, KY, element of the project; $4,900,000 for 
the Pike County (Tug Fork) element; and $5,000,000 for 
continuation of flood proofing on the Middlesboro, KY, element 
of the project; $2,000,000 for the Cumberland City/Harland 
County, KY, detailed project report; and $4,600,000 for the 
Martin County, KY, element.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $1,600,000 for 
the Upper Mingo County, including Mingo County tributaries, 
West Virginia, element; $3,600,000 for the Kermit, Lower Mingo 
County (Kermit), WV, element; $1,800,000 for the Wayne County, 
WV, element; $300,000 for the Hatfield Bottom, WV, 
nonstructural element of the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big 
Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River (sec. 202) project; and 
$5,000,000 for the McDowell County, WV, element.
    Finally, $1,000,000 is provided for the Grundy, VA, 
element.
    Marmet lock, Kanawha River, WV.--An appropriation of 
$4,000,000 is provided for the Marmet lock, West Virginia 
project. The recommended funding will be used to continue 
acquisition of hardship real estate tracts, and other 
construction activities, including geology and foundation-
related work, and the lock design memorandum.
    LaFarge Lake, WI.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for the Corps to undertake environmental compliance 
and remediation work, complete NEPA documents, undertake 
sampling and remediation of identified contamination sites, and 
carryout site safety activities related to project water 
control structures at the LaFarge Lake project in Wisconsin.
    Aquatic plant control program.--The Committee has included 
$4,000,000 to continue the aquatic plant control program. In 
light of severe budget constraints and the fact that this is a 
nationwide program, the Committee believes it inappropriate to 
earmark the small amount of funding available for fiscal year 
1997. The appropriations are to undertake the highest priority 
activities. The Committee recognizes that there is a shortage 
of funding to harvest nuisance aquatic plants, while there are 
other programs to aid aquatic plant control research. 
Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps to place a higher 
priority on actual plant control through funding provided in 
this account.
    Emergency streambank and shoreline protection, (sec. 14).--
The Committee recommendation for section 14, emergency 
streambank and shoreline protection projects is $15,000,000. 
The recommendation includes $850,000 for the Corps to the 
Whittier Creek, AK, project; $250,000 for the Grants, Cibola 
County, NM, project; and funding to continue the Lake St. Croix 
Beach, MN, and Mankato, TH 169, MN projects; $250,000 for 
design and construction of Tioga County, PA, streambank 
protection and stabilization projects.
    Beach erosion control (sec. 103).--An appropriation of 
$2,600,000 is recommended for beach erosion control, section 
103 projects for fiscal year 1997.
    Small navigation projects (sec. 107).--An appropriation of 
$8,000,000 is recommended for small navigation projects, 
section 107, projects.
    The Committee recommendation includes $200,000 to initiate 
and complete plans and specifications for the Tatitlik Harbor, 
AK, project; $100,000 to initiate plans and specifications on 
the Tamgas Harbor, AK, project; $100,000 each for the Corps to 
initiate the feasibility study for the Haines Harbor and 
Ketchikan Harbor, AK, projects; $3,000,000 to complete 
construction of King Cove, AK project; and $100,000 to initiate 
the reconnaissance study for the Thorne Bay, AK, project. 
Funding in the amount of $1,416,000 is included for the Blair 
Waterway channel deepening project in Washington; $130,000 for 
Yellow Bend Port, AR, project to allow the Corps to conduct 
feasibility studies and prepare the report to investigate the 
extension of the harbor; and $90,000 each for the New Madrid 
County Harbor, MO, and Pemiscot County Harbor, Caruthersville, 
MO, projects.
    Small flood control projects (sec. 205).--The Committee 
recommendation for section 205 small flood control projects is 
$32,000,000.
    The Committee recommendation includes $100,000 to initiate 
and complete the feasibility study and begin plans and 
specifications for the Prattville, AL, project; $100,000 to 
initiate a reconnaissance study for the Tanana River, AK, 
project; Henderson Bayou, Ascension Parish, LA, $100,000 to 
initiate a feasibility study; $100,000 for the Stephensville, 
St. Martin Parish, LA, project to initiate and complete a 
feasibility study; $130,000 for feasibility study of the 
Blackwater River, Salisbury, MA, project; $1,000,000 for 
construction of the Fort Fairfield, ME, project; $55,000 for 
the Chippewa River, Montevido, MN, project to continue the 
feasibility study; Minnesota River, Granite Falls, MN, $82,000 
to continue the feasibility study; $100,000 to initiate plans 
and specifications for the Wild Rice, Marsh River, MN, project; 
$300,000 to initiate and complete the reconnaissance study and 
begin the feasibility study of the Mecklenburg County streams, 
North Carolina project; $100,000 to initiate a reconnaissance 
study for Repaupo Creek, NJ; Fallon, NV, flood control project, 
$200,000 to complete the detailed planning report; $300,000 to 
complete construction of the Reno, NV, flood warning system; 
$1,000,000 for the Battle Mountain, NV, project to complete 
construction; $500,000 to prepare plans and specification and 
award a construction contract for construction of the Loyalsock 
Creek, Borough of Dushore, Sullivan County, PA, project; 
$150,000 to complete the detailed project report for the Doe 
River, Carter County, TN, project and initiate plans and 
specifications; $200,000 for the feasibility study for the 
Douglas Springs Branch, Rutherford, TN, project; $100,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study for the Rossville, TN, project; 
$1,750,000 for construction of the Cedar River, WA, flood 
damage reduction project; $225,000 to initiate the feasibility 
study for the Snoqualmie River, WA, project; and $200,000 to 
initiate and complete the feasibility study for the 
Stillaquaminsh River Valley, WA, project.
    Aquatic ecosystem restoration (sec. 206).--An appropriation 
of $6,000,000 is recommended for the Aquatic Ecosystem 
Restoration Program. Included in the Committee recommendation 
is $100,000 for the Badger Slough, AK, project to complete the 
feasibility study; $100,000 for the Snake River, AK, project 
for the Corps to complete the feasibility study; $2,000,000 for 
the Corps to continue construction of the Penn Mine, 
California, project; $100,000 to complete a reconnaissance 
study of the Green River/Tradewater watersheds project in west 
central Kentucky; $800,000 for the Lake Tahoe regional wetland 
development project in Nevada; $375,000 to continue the Drake 
Creek, Old Hickory Lake, TN, project; $750,000 to complete the 
environmental restoration report, and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Upper Jordan River restoration, Utah 
project; and $100,000 to complete the environmental restoration 
report of the Copperas Brook, South Strafford, VT, project.
    Projects modifications for improvement of the environment 
(sec. 1135).--The Committee has provided a total of $15,000,000 
for section 1135, projects modifications for improvements of 
the environment.
    The recommendation includes $900,000 to initiate and 
complete construction of Talkeetna, AK, project; $100,000 to 
complete the feasibility study for the Gold Creek, AK, project; 
$200,000 complete plans and specification, and initiate 
construction of the Port Canaveral, Manatee protection, Florida 
project; $100,000 to complete a reconnaissance study from the 
tailwaters of the Green River Lake to the Lock and Dam No. 6 in 
Kentucky; $200,000 to initiate and complete a reconnaissance 
study and initiate the feasibility phase for an urban habitat 
restoration project in the greater St. Louis, MO, area and 
surrounding communities; $1,400,000 to complete the Mecklenburg 
County, NC, Little Sugar Creek project; $1,125,000 for the 
Numana Dam fish passage project in Nevada; $1,000,000 for the 
Lower Bear Creek, WA, restoration project; Chittenden locks, 
Smolt passage project, Washington, $185,000 to complete 
feasibility level design and cost of various restoration 
measures and alternatives; and $2,258,000 for the Corps to 
complete plans and specification, and initiate and complete 
construction of the Lower Hamm Creek, WA, restoration project.
    Shoreline protection policy.--The Committee continues to be 
troubled by the administration's policy regarding the Federal 
role in shore protection projects and smaller navigation 
projects. While these proposals would only directly affect the 
coastal States, including the Great Lakes States, the impacts 
of terminating the Federal Government's role in protecting our 
shorelines and maintaining small boat harbors would be felt 
throughout the Nation. The Committee again strongly urges the 
OMB and executive branch to recognizes the importance and 
contribution these types of projects make to the economic well-
being of the country, and to place a higher priority on shore 
protection and small navigation projects in future budgets.

 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Arkansas, Illinois, 
       Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $296,212,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     280,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     313,234,000

    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

                                          CORPS OF ENGINEERS--FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES                                          
                                                                  [Amounts in dollars]                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Benefit                                                                                      
Type of                   Project title                      cost     Total Federal     Allocated to     Current year   Budget estimate     Committee   
project                                                     ratio          cost             date          allocation                      recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                    GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
       SURVEYS:                                                                                                                                         
           GENERAL STUDIES:                                                                                                                             
               DONALDSONVILLE TO GULF OF MEXICO         .........         100,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         100,000   
  (FDP)        MISSISSIPPI RIVER, ALEXANDER COUNTY, IL  .........         100,000   ...............  ...............         100,000          100,000   
                AND SCOTT                                                                                                                               
  (FDP)        ALEXANDRIA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO     .........       1,600,000          100,000          100,000          500,000          500,000   
  (FDP)        MORGANZA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO       .........       5,023,000        4,268,000          898,000          755,000          755,000   
  (FDP)        MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN AND MS            .........       2,925,000          850,000          450,000          800,000          800,000   
  (FDP)        REELFOOT LAKE, TN AND KY                 .........       1,982,000        1,916,000          315,000           66,000           66,000   
  (FDP)        SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS STUDY, ARKANSAS       .........       4,000,000          470,000   ...............  ...............         500,000   
  (FDP)        WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN                  .........       1,329,000        1,139,000          437,000          190,000          190,000   
   (FC)        BAYOU METO BASIN, AR                     .........     125,000,000          300,000          300,000        2,500,000        2,500,000   
   (FC)        REELFOOT LAKE, TN AND KY                 .........      19,500,000   ...............  ...............         450,000          450,000   
           COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA           .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         360,000          360,000   
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS           .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       5,721,000        5,821,000   
                                                       =================================================================================================
                                                                                                                                                        
                         CONSTRUCTION                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND      39.30   3,620,000,000    2,483,509,000       31,536,000       44,599,000       44,599,000   
        TN                                                                                                                                              
   (FC)EIGHT MILE CREEK, AR                                  2.30       9,020,000        3,087,000          763,000          581,000          581,000   
   (FC)GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR                         .........     229,800,000       12,350,000        1,900,000       11,500,000   ...............  
   (FC)HELENA AND VICINITY, AR                               1.90       8,193,000        2,825,000          658,000          910,000          910,000   
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS,        39.30   1,486,000,000      830,074,000       28,143,000       23,750,000       30,750,000   
        MO AND TN                                                                                                                                       
   (FC)ST FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, AR AND MO                     1.30     381,000,000      357,595,000        5,191,000        4,900,000        4,900,000   
   (FC)WHITEMAN'S CREEK, AR                                  5.50       3,300,000        2,626,000        1,039,000          674,000          674,000   
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA               39.30     185,000,000       62,598,000        4,702,000        7,500,000        7,500,000   
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA                                39.30   1,730,000,000      822,998,000       19,036,000       21,023,000       21,023,000   
   (FC)LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, LA                 .........      25,100,000        1,316,000          892,000          400,000        5,400,000   
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA         1.70      64,500,000        7,865,000          282,000          250,000          250,000   
        AND MS                                                                                                                                          
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA                          7.10      98,500,000       64,298,000       14,891,000       14,000,000       16,000,000   
   (FC)TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA                 2.10     169,342,000      105,925,000        7,886,000       10,100,000       10,100,000   
       YAZOO BASIN, MS                                  .........  (1,157,209,000)    (614,846,000)     (31,586,000)     (18,665,000)     (18,665,000)  
   (FC)    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS                      .........     106,175,000       86,961,000        3,881,000        3,450,000        4,950,000   
   (FC)    DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL, MS            .........     229,126,000      225,226,000       13,252,000        3,900,000       13,500,000   
   (FC)    MAIN STEM, MS                                .........     208,500,000       34,562,000           24,000           25,000           25,000   
   (FC)    REFORMULATION UNIT, MS                       .........      32,408,000       25,620,000        1,880,000        1,840,000        1,840,000   
   (FC)    TRIBUTARIES, MS                              .........     243,000,000      107,433,000         -312,000          200,000          200,000   
   (FC)    UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS                     .........     338,000,000      135,044,000       12,861,000        9,250,000       10,750,000   
           YAZOO BACKWATER PUMP                         .........      95,200,000       10,688,000   ...............  ...............         500,000   
   (FC)ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO       .........      56,300,000        7,470,000        2,820,000          250,000        6,250,000   
   (FC)NONCONNAH CREEK, FLOOD CONTROL FEATURE, TN AND        6.20      17,925,000       10,359,000          210,000          122,000          122,000   
        MS                                                                                                                                              
   (FC)WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN                         .77     143,000,000       51,700,000          671,000        3,750,000        3,750,000   
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION                     .........  ...............  ...............  ...............     162,974,000      184,574,000   
                                                       =================================================================================================
                         MAINTENANCE                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
   (FC)CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND  .........  ...............  ...............  ...............      53,329,000       53,329,000   
        TN                                                                                                                                              
    (N)HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR               .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         293,000          293,000   
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         457,000          457,000   
   (FC)LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR             .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         112,000          112,000   
   (FC)LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR             .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         124,000          124,000   
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS,    .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       6,271,000        6,800,000   
        MO AND TN                                                                                                                                       
   (FC)ST FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, AR AND MO                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       7,600,000        9,600,000   
   (FC)TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND    .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       2,374,000        2,374,000   
        LA                                                                                                                                              
   (FC)WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR                        .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       1,400,000        1,400,000   
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............          47,000           47,000   
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............          26,000           26,000   
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA           .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         613,000          613,000   
   (FC)ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA                            .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       9,425,000       11,425,000   
   (FC)BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA              .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         146,000          146,000   
   (FC)BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA               .........  ...............  ...............  ...............          90,000           90,000   
   (FC)BONNET CARRE, LA                                 .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         975,000        2,200,000   
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         368,000          368,000   
   (FC)LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA           .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       1,773,000        1,773,000   
   (FC)MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA                     .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         402,000          402,000   
   (FC)OLD RIVER, LA                                    .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       4,100,000        4,100,000   
   (FC)TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA            .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       2,820,000        2,820,000   
    (N)GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS                            .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         361,000          361,000   
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         195,000          195,000   
    (N)VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS                             .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         247,000          247,000   
       YAZOO BASIC, MS                                  .........  ...............  ...............  ...............     (20,966,000)     (20,966,000)  
   (FC)    ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS                           .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       3,193,000        3,993,000   
   (FC)    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS                      .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         242,000        3,242,000   
   (FC)    ENID LAKE, MS                                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       3,273,000        3,273,000   
   (FC)    GREENWOOD, MS                                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         837,000          837,000   
   (FC)    GRENADA LAKE, MS                             .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       4,330,000        4,330,000   
   (FC)    MAIN STEM, MS                                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       1,631,000        1,631,000   
   (FC)    SARDIS LAKE, MS                              .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       4,320,000        6,300,000   
   (FC)    TRIBUTARIES, MS                              .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       1,238,000        1,238,000   
   (FC)    WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS              .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         498,000          498,000   
   (FC)    YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS                     .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         621,000          621,000   
   (FC)    YAZOO CITY, MS                               .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         783,000          783,000   
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         210,000          210,000   
   (FC)WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO                              .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       6,833,000        6,833,000   
   (FC)INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         118,000          118,000   
    (N)MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN                .........  ...............  ...............  ...............       1,400,000        1,400,000   
   (FC)MAPPING                                          .........  ...............  ...............  ...............         998,000          998,000   
           REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND        .........  ...............  ...............  ...............     -12,768,000      -13,268,000   
            SLIPPAGE                                                                                                                                    
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE                      .........  ...............  ...............  ...............     111,305,000      124,339,000   
                                                       =================================================================================================
             TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER    .........  ...............  ...............  ...............     280,000,000      314,734,000   
              AND TRIBUTARIES                                                                                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TYPE OF PROJECT:                                                                                                                                 
           (N)  NAVIGATION                                                                                                                              
           (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL                                                                                                                          

    The Committee is again concerned by the continued, severe 
reductions for the Mississippi River and tributaries [MR&T] 
project. The Committee feels this is unacceptable when only a 
few short years ago the Mississippi was experiencing 
devastating flooding. The Mississippi River has the third 
largest drainage basin in the world, exceeded in size only by 
the Amazon and Congo River watersheds. It drains a total of 
1,245,00 square miles, covering all or part of 31 States and 
two Canadian Provinces. Water from as far east as New York and 
as far west as Wyoming contribute to floods in the lower 
Mississippi River Valley, flowing through the basin roughly 
resembling a funnel which has its spout at the Gulf of Mexico.
    Therefore, flood control and protection along the 
Mississippi River and its tributaries is not an option, it is 
mandatory. The floods of 1993 demonstrated this importance by 
averting $8,100,000,000 in damages. Over the years, the MR&T 
project has saved and estimated $150,000,000,000 in flood 
damages based on a Federal investment of $8,121,000,000. 
Another outcome of the recent floods is the need to raise and 
strengthen numerous section of levees. The proposed $65,000,000 
reduction below the appropriation for 1998 severely impacts 
this effort and increases the likelihood of higher disaster 
payments as the result of major flooding.
    In action of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
of 1998, Congress directed no fully allocated funding policy be 
applied to projects funded in the current year. Given the 
detrimental and adverse impacts to the Nation and the 
Mississippi River and tributaries area, the Committee directs 
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
Engineers to continue ongoing construction and expedite award 
of contracts, using continuing contracts, in fiscal year 1999 
to alleviate continued flooding and suffering affected areas.
    Southeast Arkansas, including Boeuf-Tensas area, study, 
Arkansas.--An appropriation of $500,000 is recommended for the 
southeast Arkansas study, including the Boeuf-Tensas area. The 
funding will allow the Corps to continue feasibility studies to 
address flooding, water supply, and environmental needs in the 
southeastern portion of Arkansas.
    Bonnet Carre' spillway, maintenance, Louisiana.--Funding of 
$2,200,000 is provided for the Bonnet Carre' spillway, 
Louisiana. project to perform operation and maintenance 
activities, and to replace two cranes at the facility.
    Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.--The 
Committee has included $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
undertake a reconnaissance study of rainfall, tidal, and 
hurricane flooding between Bayou Lafourche and Donaldsonville, 
LA, and the Gulf of Mexico.
    Mississippi Delta region, Davis Pond, LA.--An additional 
$2,000,000 is recommended for the Mississippi Delta region, 
Davis Pond, LA project to expedite construction due to 
anticipated increases in contractor earning and, where 
possible, to initiate work to mitigate negative impacts caused 
by the freshwater diversion.
    Yazoo basin backwater project, MR&T.--The Committee is 
aware of the frequent flooding being experienced in the Yazoo 
backwater portion of the Mississippi Delta located just north 
of Vicksburg, MS. Work on this project was initiated in March 
1986, but was delayed for reformulation of the project to 
consider alternatives. The Committee understands that the 
project reformulation is scheduled for completion in fiscal 
year 1999 and has provided $500,000 to initiate design of the 
reformulated project.
    Yazoo basin, Big Sunflower River, MR&T.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,500,000 for the Corps to expedite 
various features of the Big Sunflower River, MS, project.
    Yazoo basin, demonstration erosion control, MR&T.--An 
additional $9,600,000 is recommended for the demonstration 
erosion control project, to continue a joint effort by the 
Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service in the Yazoo basin of the Mississippi. The funds 
provided will permit the Corps to undertake additional flood 
water retarding structures, pipe and culvert grade control 
structures, channel improvements, and bank stabilization items 
in various watersheds. Design of future work, acquisition of 
real estate and monitoring of results will be accomplished for 
all watersheds in order to facilitate work in fiscal year 1999 
and for all future work as required for completion of the total 
program. The Committee expects the administration to continue 
to request funds for this important project.
    Yazoo basin maintenance.--The Committee has been informed 
of inadequate maintenance of road surfaces and slides on 
Mississippi levees in the Yazoo basin. Additional levee 
maintenance funding has been provided for the Corps to address 
this problem. In addition, head-cutting and severe erosion 
control problems in the Yazoo basin continue to threaten 
structures. The Corps is directed to use the funds provided for 
operation and maintenance to begin addressing these growing 
problems and other priority maintenance needs, and to 
coordinate its efforts with local sponsors.

                   operation and maintenance, general

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $1,740,025,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,603,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,667,572,000

    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

         CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL         
                          [Amounts in dollars]                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget         Committee  
              Project title                  estimate     recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                 ALABAMA                                                
                                                                        
ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER, AL.................       4,900,000       4,900,000
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL......................       1,800,000       1,800,000
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL..      16,000,000      20,000,000
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL..........       7,726,000       7,726,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL.......          30,000          30,000
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM                                     
 ``BILL'' DANNELLY LA...................       4,000,000       5,000,000
MOBILE HARBOR, AL.......................      21,000,000      25,000,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL...........         300,000         300,000
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL.........       3,900,000       3,900,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL.....          20,000          20,000
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS.      17,000,000      18,200,000
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA.       6,400,000       6,400,000
                                                                        
                 ALASKA                                                 
                                                                        
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK....................       1,600,000       1,600,000
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK...................       1,591,000       1,591,000
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK...................         592,000         592,000
HOMER HARBOR, AK........................         243,000         243,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK.......          20,000          20,000
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK....................         200,000         200,000
NOME HARBOR, AK.........................         265,000         265,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK...........         489,000         489,000
ST. PAUL HARBOR AK......................  ..............         500,000
WRANGELL NARROWS, AK....................  ..............         600,000
                                                                        
                 ARIZONA                                                
                                                                        
ALAMO LAKE, AZ..........................       1,114,000       1,114,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ.......          73,000          73,000
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ....................       1,079,000       1,079,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ.....          25,000          25,000
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ...................         192,000         192,000
                                                                        
                ARKANSAS                                                
                                                                        
BEAVER LAKE, AR.........................       3,585,000       3,585,000
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR.......       5,464,000       5,464,000
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR..................         998,000         998,000
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR....................       4,652,000       4,652,000
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.............       5,861,000       5,861,000
DEGRAY LAKE, AR.........................       3,988,000       3,988,000
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR........................         965,000         965,000
DIERKS LAKE, AR.........................         954,000         954,000
GILLHAM LAKE, AR........................         896,000         896,000
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR...................       4,148,000       4,148,000
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR......         278,000         278,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.......         253,000         253,000
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION                                
 SYSTEM, AR.............................      22,093,000      23,693,000
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR.......................       1,571,000       1,571,000
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR...........       3,834,000       3,834,000
NIMROD LAKE, AR.........................       1,397,000       1,397,000
NORFORK LAKE, AR........................       3,471,000       3,471,000
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR......................         383,000         383,000
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA....       6,332,000       6,332,000
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR......       4,185,000       4,185,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR...........           4,000           4,000
WHITE RIVER, AR.........................       2,747,000       2,747,000
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR....................         119,000         119,000
                                                                        
               CALIFORNIA                                               
                                                                        
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA....................       1,782,000       1,782,000
BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA......       1,820,000       1,820,000
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA..............       3,246,000       3,246,000
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA...       3,121,000       3,121,000
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND                                       
 CHANNEL, CA............................       4,060,000       4,060,000
FARMINGTON DAM, CA......................         374,000         374,000
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA............       1,843,000       1,843,000
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.............       3,910,000       3,910,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA.......         973,000         973,000
ISABELLA LAKE, CA.......................       1,401,000       1,401,000
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA.         165,000         165,000
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA....       3,613,000       3,613,000
MARINA DEL RAY, CA......................  ..............       3,000,000
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA...............         288,000         288,000
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA....................         237,000         237,000
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA....................  ..............       1,000,000
MOSS CREEK LANDING, CA..................  ..............       1,300,000
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA......................       1,732,000       1,732,000
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA       1,101,000       1,101,000
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA......................       3,424,000       3,424,000
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA....................         622,000         622,000
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA......................       2,197,000       2,197,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA...........       1,100,000       1,100,000
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA.....................       5,384,000       5,384,000
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA..       2,182,000       2,182,000
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS                                
 CONTROL), CA...........................       1,069,000       1,069,000
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL,                                 
 CA.....................................         133,000         133,000
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL                                          
 STRUCTURE, CA..........................       2,211,000       2,211,000
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT                                     
 REMOVAL), CA...........................       2,392,000       2,392,000
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA................       2,339,000       2,339,000
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA...................       3,004,000       3,004,000
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA       1,500,000       1,500,000
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA...............       3,023,000       3,023,000
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA................       1,541,000       1,541,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA.....       1,081,000       1,081,000
SUCCESS LAKE, CA........................       1,890,000       1,890,000
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA..................       1,044,000       1,044,000
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA...........       1,570,000       1,570,000
VENTURA HARBOR, CA......................       2,705,000       2,705,000
YUBA RIVER, CA..........................          35,000          35,000
                                                                        
                COLORADO                                                
                                                                        
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO.....................         460,000         460,000
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO......................         648,000         648,000
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO...................         965,000         965,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO.......         101,000         101,000
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO...............       1,771,000       1,771,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO.....         398,000         398,000
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO.......................         767,000         767,000
                                                                        
               CONNECTICUT                                              
                                                                        
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT.....................         440,000         440,000
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT................         516,000         516,000
FIVE MILE RIVER, CT.....................  ..............         700,000
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT..................         216,000         216,000
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT......................         867,000         867,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT.......          33,000          33,000
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT...............         418,000         418,000
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT...............         319,000         319,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT...........         971,000         971,000
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT..........         295,000         295,000
THOMASTON DAM, CT.......................         672,000         672,000
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT..................         496,000         496,000
                                                                        
                DELAWARE                                                
                                                                        
CEDAR CREEK, DE.........................         250,000         250,000
CHESAPEAKE AND DELAWARE CANAL--ST                                       
 GEORGE'S BRIDGE REP....................      14,000,000      14,000,000
INDIAN RIVER INLET AND BAY, DE..........         280,000         280,000
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO                                    
 CHESAPEAKE BAY, D......................      12,816,000      12,816,000
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO                                  
 DELAWARE BAY, D........................          43,000          43,000
MISPILLION RIVER, DE....................         225,000         225,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE...........          50,000          50,000
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE...................       5,590,000       5,590,000
                                                                        
          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                                          
                                                                        
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC.......           5,000           5,000
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS (DRIFT                                     
 REMOVAL), DC...........................         880,000         880,000
POTOMAC RIVER BELOW WASHINGTON, DC......         183,000         183,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC...........          32,000          32,000
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC...................          35,000          35,000
                                                                        
                 FLORIDA                                                
                                                                        
AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST JOHNS RIVER, FL,                                
 GA, SC, NC &...........................          30,000          30,000
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL....................       3,367,000       3,367,000
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL........       8,598,000       8,598,000
CHARLOTTE HARBOR, FL....................          40,000       3,000,000
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL...................       1,615,000       1,615,000
FT MYERS BEACH, FL......................  ..............       1,000,000
FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL..................         441,000         441,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL.......          75,000          75,000
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE R                                 
 TO ANCLOTE R,..........................          88,000          88,000
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO                                  
 MIAMI, FL..............................       3,153,000       3,153,000
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.................       7,625,000       7,625,000
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE                                         
 SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA................       5,400,000       5,400,000
LA GRANGE BAYOU, FL.....................  ..............         250,000
MANATEE HARBOR, FL......................          20,000          20,000
MIAMI HARBOR, FL........................         200,000         200,000
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL.................       3,159,000       3,159,000
OKLAWAHA RIVER, FL......................           5,000           5,000
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL...................       2,190,000       2,190,000
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL..................          20,000          20,000
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL.................          30,000       4,000,000
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL..............          50,000          50,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL...........         425,000         425,000
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL...........       2,700,000       2,700,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL.....          34,000          34,000
ST AUGUSTINE HARBOR, FL.................          60,000          60,000
ST LUCIE INLET, FL......................          60,000          60,000
TAMPA HARBOR, FL........................       5,201,000       5,201,000
WITHLACOOCHIE RIVER, FL.................          34,000          34,000
                                                                        
                 GEORGIA                                                
                                                                        
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA......................       4,900,000       4,900,000
APALACHICOLA CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT                                    
 RIVERS, GA, AL &.......................       4,700,000       4,700,000
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA......       2,162,000       2,162,000
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA....................       9,728,000       9,728,000
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA...       6,400,000       6,400,000
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA................       4,600,000       4,600,000
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC................       8,588,000       8,588,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA.......          41,000          41,000
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC........       8,200,000       8,200,000
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND                                  
 SC.....................................       6,380,000       6,380,000
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.....................       8,161,000      12,161,000
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA........         200,000         200,000
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL......       4,800,000       4,800,000
                                                                        
                 HAWAII                                                 
                                                                        
BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI................         916,000         916,000
HONOLULU HARBOR, HI.....................       1,580,000       1,580,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI.......         262,000         262,000
KAHULUI HARBOR, HI......................         910,000         910,000
NAWILIWILI HARBOR, HI...................         962,000         962,000
PORT ALLEN HARBOR, KAUAI, HI............         292,000         292,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI...........         416,000         416,000
                                                                        
                  IDAHO                                                 
                                                                        
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID....................       1,432,000       1,432,000
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID..........       3,743,000       3,743,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID.......          89,000          89,000
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID.....................         975,000         975,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID.....         190,000         190,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, ID.............................          62,000          62,000
                                                                        
                ILLINOIS                                                
                                                                        
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN.....       1,444,000       1,444,000
CARLYLE LAKE, IL........................       6,337,000       6,337,000
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL......................       4,889,000       4,889,000
CHICAGO RIVER, IL.......................         362,000         362,000
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL...............         135,000         135,000
ILLINOIS WATERWAY, IL AND IN............      22,934,000      22,934,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.......         657,000         657,000
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL..........       2,273,000       2,273,000
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.............         537,000         537,000
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL....................       4,219,000       4,219,000
MISS R BETWEEN MO R AND MINNEAPOLIS, IL,                                
 IA, MN, MO &...........................      96,985,000      96,985,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL...........          72,000          72,000
REND LAKE, IL...........................       3,868,000       3,868,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, IL.............................          96,000          96,000
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL.....................         995,000         995,000
                                                                        
                 INDIANA                                                
                                                                        
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN.....................         776,000         776,000
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN...............         925,000         925,000
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN....................         797,000         797,000
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN.................         924,000         924,000
INDIANA HARBOR, IN......................         564,000         564,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN.......          80,000          80,000
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN.................         733,000         733,000
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN................          57,000          57,000
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN...................         851,000         851,000
MONROE LAKE, IN.........................         806,000         806,000
PATOKA LAKE, IN.........................         836,000         836,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN...........          67,000          67,000
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN......................         768,000         768,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, IN.............................          62,000          62,000
                                                                        
                  IOWA                                                  
                                                                        
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA.....................       2,615,000       2,615,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA.......         170,000         170,000
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO                                    
 SIOUX CITY, IA.........................         154,000         154,000
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO MOUTH, IA,                                
 NE, KS AND MO..........................       6,280,000       6,280,000
RATHBUN LAKE, IA........................       2,156,000       2,156,000
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA......       3,365,000       3,365,000
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA....................       4,170,000       4,170,000
                                                                        
                 KANSAS                                                 
                                                                        
CLINTON LAKE, KS........................       2,389,000       2,389,000
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS..................         956,000         956,000
EL DORADO LAKE, KS......................         461,000         461,000
ELK CITY LAKE, KS.......................         585,000         585,000
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS.....................       1,092,000       1,092,000
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS......................         949,000         949,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS.......         267,000         267,000
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS......         913,000         913,000
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS......................       1,352,000       1,352,000
MARION LAKE, KS.........................       1,206,000       1,206,000
MELVERN LAKE, KS........................       1,683,000       1,683,000
MILFORD LAKE, KS........................       1,699,000       1,699,000
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS......         787,000         787,000
PERRY LAKE, KS..........................       1,850,000       1,850,000
POMONA LAKE, KS.........................       1,632,000       1,632,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS.....         333,000         333,000
TORONTO LAKE, KS........................         440,000         440,000
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS...................       1,977,000       1,977,000
WILSON LAKE, KS.........................       1,655,000       1,655,000
                                                                        
                KENTUCKY                                                
                                                                        
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN.       8,005,000       8,005,000
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY...................       2,077,000       2,077,000
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY....................       1,170,000       1,170,000
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY.......................       1,317,000       1,317,000
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY.....................       1,406,000       1,406,000
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY.......................         808,000         808,000
DEWEY LAKE, KY..........................       1,431,000       1,431,000
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY........         325,000         325,000
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY.......................       1,450,000       1,450,000
GRAYSON LAKE, KY........................       1,048,000       1,048,000
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.............       1,601,000       1,601,000
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY....................       1,672,000       1,672,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.......         105,000         105,000
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY......................       4,488,000       4,488,000
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY...................       1,266,000       1,266,000
LICKING RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY.....          17,000          17,000
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY...................         686,000         686,000
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY..          52,000          52,000
NOLIN LAKE, KY..........................       1,764,000       1,764,000
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN,                                  
 OH, PA AND WV..........................      59,814,000      59,814,000
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL,                                   
 IN, OH, PA AND WV......................       5,447,000       5,447,000
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY....................         920,000         920,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY...........           4,000           4,000
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY....................       1,531,000       1,531,000
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY...................       1,056,000       1,056,000
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.....       3,927,000       3,927,000
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY.....................       1,090,000       1,090,000
                                                                        
                LOUISIANA                                               
                                                                        
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE,                                     
 BOEUF AND BLACK, L.....................       7,681,000       7,681,000
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA..............       1,450,000       1,450,000
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA..............         481,000         481,000
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP                                      
 WATERWAY, LA...........................           5,000           5,000
BAYOU PIERRE, LA........................          25,000          25,000
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA.....          50,000          50,000
BAYOU TECHE, LA.........................         140,000       3,140,000
CADDO LAKE, LA..........................         114,000         114,000
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA............       6,980,000       6,980,000
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA....................       2,960,000       2,960,000
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA AND TX...      19,561,000      22,561,000
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA..............         841,000         841,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.......         423,000         423,000
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA..............         368,000         368,000
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA.................          43,000          43,000
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA.....................       2,808,000       2,808,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA.       1,095,000       1,095,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE                                   
 GULF OF MEXICO,........................      46,220,000      46,220,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA......      11,580,000      14,080,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA...........          80,000          80,000
RED RIVER WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO                                
 SHREVEPORT, L..........................       8,337,000       9,837,000
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA...........       1,960,000       1,960,000
WALLACE LAKE, LA........................         184,000         184,000
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA....           5,000           5,000
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO B                                
 DULAC, LA..............................         165,000         165,000
                                                                        
                  MAINE                                                 
                                                                        
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME.......          15,000          15,000
KENNEBEC RIVER, ME......................         301,000         301,000
PORTLAND HARBOR, ME.....................         400,000       6,000,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME...........       1,596,000       1,596,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, ME.............................          17,000          17,000
                                                                        
                MARYLAND                                                
                                                                        
BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD....         440,000         440,000
BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                                         
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),.................         570,000         570,000
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT),                                
 MD.....................................      14,558,000      14,558,000
CHESTER RIVER, MD.......................         335,000         335,000
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.........         105,000         105,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD.......          32,000          32,000
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV.......       1,492,000       1,492,000
KNAPPS NARROWS, MD......................          70,000          70,000
NANTICOKE RIVER NORTHWEST FORK, MD......          75,000          75,000
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND                                         
 SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.....................         330,000         330,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD...........         306,000         306,000
ROCK HALL HARBOR, MD....................         260,000         260,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD.....          83,000          83,000
TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD.         575,000         575,000
WICOMICO RIVER, MD......................         305,000         305,000
                                                                        
              MASSACHUSETTS                                             
                                                                        
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA.....................         409,000         409,000
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA......................         695,000         695,000
BOSTON HARBOR, MA.......................       7,000,000       7,000,000
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA....................         367,000         367,000
CAPE COD CANAL, MA......................       8,416,000       8,416,000
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE                                    
 AREA, MA...............................         232,000         232,000
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA...................         133,000         133,000
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA.................         273,000         273,000
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA..................         349,000         349,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA.......          72,000          72,000
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA.....................         381,000         381,000
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA....................         526,000         526,000
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET                                      
 HURRICANE BARRIER,.....................         329,000         329,000
NEWBURYPORT HARBOR, MA..................         594,000         594,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA...........         873,000         873,000
TULLY LAKE, MA..........................         401,000         401,000
WEST HILL DAM, MA.......................         633,000         633,000
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA......................         333,000         333,000
                                                                        
                MICHIGAN                                                
                                                                        
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI...........         110,000         110,000
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI...................         194,000         194,000
DETROIT RIVER, MI.......................       2,392,000       2,392,000
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI....................          49,000          49,000
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI..................         704,000         704,000
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI......................         497,000         497,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI.......         205,000         205,000
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI...................         286,000         286,000
LELAND HARBOR, MI.......................         154,000         154,000
LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI....................         259,000         259,000
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI....................       1,641,000       1,641,000
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI.....................         421,000         421,000
MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI....................         247,000         247,000
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI.............           4,000           4,000
MONROE HARBOR, MI.......................         622,000         622,000
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI.....................         881,000         881,000
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI....................         724,000         724,000
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI....................  ..............       1,900,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI...........         367,000         367,000
ROUGE RIVER, MI.........................         416,000         416,000
SAGINAW RIVER, MI.......................       1,275,000       1,275,000
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI....................       2,003,000       2,003,000
SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI...          10,000          10,000
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI......................         571,000         571,000
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI....................       1,422,000       1,422,000
ST MARYS RIVER, MI......................      20,720,000      20,720,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, MI.............................       3,192,000       3,192,000
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI...................       1,874,000       1,874,000
                                                                        
                MINNESOTA                                               
                                                                        
BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD         566,000         566,000
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI.......       4,085,000       4,085,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN.......          97,000          97,000
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN         490,000         490,000
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.....................         155,000         155,000
ORWELL LAKE, MN.........................         797,000         797,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN...........          17,000          17,000
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN..................         444,000         444,000
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI                                 
 RIVER, MN..............................       3,699,000       3,699,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, MN.............................          31,000          31,000
                                                                        
               MISSISSIPPI                                              
                                                                        
BILOXI HARBOR, MS.......................          10,000          10,000
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS...............           8,000           8,000
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS..........         120,000         120,000
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS.....................       2,200,000       2,200,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.......         114,000         114,000
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS................         101,000         101,000
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS......................       1,700,000       1,700,000
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...................       2,900,000       2,900,000
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA..................         263,000         263,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS...........           4,000           4,000
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS.....................         415,000         415,000
YAZOO RIVER, MS.........................          15,000          15,000
                                                                        
                MISSOURI                                                
                                                                        
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO...............         159,000         159,000
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE,                                
 MO.....................................       4,445,000       4,445,000
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO.....................       2,067,000       2,067,000
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO....       7,444,000       7,444,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.......         377,000         377,000
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.............         777,000         777,000
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO....................         814,000         814,000
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS                                  
 (REG WORKS), MO........................      13,908,000      13,908,000
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO...................         206,000         206,000
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO.................       1,789,000       1,789,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO...........           5,000           5,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO.....          50,000          50,000
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO.....................       1,049,000       1,049,000
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI                                    
 RIVER, MO..............................         280,000         280,000
STOCKTON LAKE, MO.......................       3,560,000       3,560,000
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO.....................       5,051,000       5,051,000
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO.....................          20,000          20,000
                                                                        
                 MONTANA                                                
                                                                        
FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT................       4,671,000       4,671,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT.......          23,000          23,000
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT...........       1,570,000       1,570,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, MT.............................          67,000          67,000
                                                                        
                NEBRASKA                                                
                                                                        
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE,                                 
 NE AND SD..............................       7,138,000       7,138,000
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE..................       1,679,000       1,679,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE.......         170,000         170,000
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL,                                   
 NE, IA, KS, MO,........................       1,900,000       1,900,000
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER                                
 PLANNING, NE...........................         200,000         200,000
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE  ..............         400,000
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES,                                  
 NE.....................................         597,000         597,000
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE..........         786,000         786,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NE.....         113,000         113,000
                                                                        
                 NEVADA                                                 
                                                                        
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV.......          36,000          36,000
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA............         588,000         588,000
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV......         284,000         284,000
                                                                        
              NEW HAMPSHIRE                                             
                                                                        
BLACKWATER DAM, NH......................         410,000         410,000
COCHECHO RIVER, NH......................  ..............       1,000,000
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH...............         522,000         522,000
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH..................         591,000         591,000
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH.............         964,000         964,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH.......          10,000          10,000
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH....................         493,000         493,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH...........         126,000         126,000
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH.................         485,000         485,000
                                                                        
               NEW JERSEY                                               
                                                                        
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ......................       1,050,000       1,050,000
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ...................         390,000         390,000
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ............         305,000         305,000
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA,                                
 NJ, PA AND DE..........................      16,650,000      18,150,000
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO                                     
 TRENTON, NJ............................       1,000,000       1,000,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ.......         429,000         429,000
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ....       2,195,000       2,195,000
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC                                      
 RIVERS, NJ.............................         590,000         590,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ...........         805,000         805,000
                                                                        
               NEW MEXICO                                               
                                                                        
ABIQUIU DAM, NM.........................       1,287,000       1,287,000
COCHITI LAKE, NM........................       1,944,000       1,944,000
CONCHAS LAKE, NM........................       1,293,000       1,293,000
GALISTEO DAM, NM........................         277,000         277,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM.......          83,000          83,000
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM....................         339,000         339,000
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.............         969,000         969,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM.....         124,000         124,000
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM......................         337,000         337,000
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL.  ..............         850,000
                                                                        
                NEW YORK                                                
                                                                        
ALMOND LAKE, NY.........................         449,000         449,000
ARKPORT DAM, NY.........................         227,000         227,000
BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY.....          75,000          75,000
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR,                                
 NY.....................................       4,057,000       4,057,000
BRONX RIVER, NY.........................         700,000         700,000
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY......................       1,027,000       1,027,000
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY..................         730,000         730,000
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY......................         434,000         434,000
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY.................       2,000,000       2,000,000
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY....................         384,000         384,000
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY...................         900,000         900,000
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY....       1,650,000       1,650,000
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY..............          75,000          75,000
HUDSON RIVER, NY........................       2,380,000       2,380,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY.......         543,000         543,000
JAMAICA BAY, NY.........................       1,000,000       1,000,000
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY......................       1,340,000       1,340,000
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY....         760,000         760,000
NEW YORK HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), NY AND                                 
 NJ.....................................       4,930,000       4,930,000
NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                                          
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),.................         740,000         740,000
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY.....................       3,310,000       3,310,000
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY.......................         345,000         345,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY...........       1,710,000       1,710,000
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY....................         680,000         680,000
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL                                         
 PROJECTS, NY...........................         715,000         715,000
STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY...............          15,000          15,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, NY.............................         538,000         538,000
WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY...................         700,000         700,000
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY..................         517,000         517,000
                                                                        
             NORTH CAROLINA                                             
                                                                        
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC......       5,454,000       5,454,000
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC.......       1,119,000       1,119,000
BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC.....................         350,000         350,000
BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC.............         490,000         490,000
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC....         667,000         667,000
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC................         700,000         700,000
FALLS LAKE, NC..........................         842,000         842,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC.......          22,000          22,000
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC...............         503,000         503,000
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.............       4,865,000       4,865,000
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC................       3,885,000       3,885,000
NEW RIVER INLET, NC.....................         800,000         800,000
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING                                        
 CHANNELS, NC...........................         575,000         575,000
PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC..............          75,000          75,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC...........          59,000          59,000
ROANOKE RIVER, NC.......................          75,000          75,000
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC......       1,472,000       1,472,000
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...................       5,700,000       5,700,000
                                                                        
              NORTH DAKOTA                                              
                                                                        
BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND...................         179,000         179,000
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND........       9,471,000       9,571,000
HOMME LAKE, ND..........................         177,000         177,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND.......         105,000         105,000
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND.....       1,206,000       1,206,000
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND.......................         409,000         409,000
SOURIS RIVER, ND........................         276,000         276,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, ND.............................          31,000          31,000
                                                                        
                  OHIO                                                  
                                                                        
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH.....................         628,000         628,000
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH....................       1,420,000       1,420,000
BERLIN LAKE, OH.........................       3,189,000       3,189,000
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH...................       1,060,000       1,060,000
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH................         724,000         724,000
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH....................       6,456,000       6,456,000
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH.....................         325,000         325,000
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH.....................         720,000         720,000
DELAWARE LAKE, OH.......................         680,000         680,000
DILLON LAKE, OH.........................         768,000         768,000
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH.....................         385,000         385,000
HURON HARBOR, OH........................       1,000,000       1,000,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH.......         217,000         217,000
LORAIN HARBOR, OH.......................         530,000         530,000
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..          25,000          25,000
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH..       1,032,000       1,032,000
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH.................       1,234,000       1,234,000
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH...............       6,186,000       6,186,000
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH....         319,000         319,000
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH....................         595,000         595,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH...........          75,000          75,000
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..          30,000          30,000
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH.....................         935,000         935,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, OH.............................         166,000         166,000
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH.......................       3,385,000       3,385,000
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH.....................         251,000         251,000
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH........         543,000         543,000
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH...............         818,000         818,000
                                                                        
                OKLAHOMA                                                
                                                                        
ARCADIA LAKE, OK........................         347,000         347,000
BIRCH LAKE, OK..........................         635,000         635,000
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK.....................       1,350,000       1,350,000
CANDY LAKE, OK..........................          18,000          18,000
CANTON LAKE, OK.........................       1,509,000       1,509,000
COPAN LAKE, OK..........................         618,000         618,000
EUFAULA LAKE, OK........................       4,074,000       4,074,000
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK....................       3,647,000       3,647,000
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK....................         696,000         696,000
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK..............         240,000         240,000
HEYBURN LAKE, OK........................         651,000         651,000
HUGO LAKE, OK...........................       1,285,000       1,285,000
HULAH LAKE, OK..........................         433,000         433,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK.......          75,000          75,000
KAW LAKE, OK............................       1,446,000       1,446,000
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK.......................       3,367,000       3,367,000
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK........................       1,915,000       1,915,000
OPTIMA LAKE, OK.........................          54,000          54,000
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE                                        
 CHEROKEES, OK..........................          36,000          36,000
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK.....................       1,112,000       1,112,000
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND                                          
 RESERVOIRS, OK.........................       3,695,000       3,695,000
SARDIS LAKE, OK.........................         908,000         908,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK.....         344,000         344,000
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK.......................         869,000         869,000
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK................       3,296,000       3,296,000
WAURIKA LAKE, OK........................       1,393,000       1,393,000
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK..........       3,795,000       3,795,000
WISTER LAKE, OK.........................       1,201,000       1,201,000
                                                                        
                 OREGON                                                 
                                                                        
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR......................         740,000         740,000
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR.....................         233,000         233,000
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA......       5,111,000       5,111,000
CHETCO RIVER, OR........................         383,000         383,000
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW                                       
 VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA...............      12,122,000      12,122,000
COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS                                    
 BELOW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLAND,                                      
 ASTORIA BOAT BASIN NORTH BREAKWATER....  ..............       4,800,000
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA..       6,960,000       6,960,000
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND                                
 THE DALLES, O..........................         391,000         391,000
COOS BAY, OR............................       4,601,000       4,601,000
COQUILLE RIVER, OR......................         421,000         421,000
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR..................         751,000         751,000
COUGAR LAKE, OR.........................         855,000         855,000
DEPOE BAY, OR...........................           9,000           9,000
DETROIT LAKE, OR........................         951,000         951,000
DORENA LAKE, OR.........................         399,000         399,000
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR.....................         523,000         523,000
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR.....................         905,000         905,000
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR............       1,245,000       1,245,000
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR....................         422,000         422,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR.......         180,000         180,000
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA........       3,936,000       3,936,000
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR..................       1,941,000       1,941,000
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR.....................       2,889,000       2,889,000
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..........       3,304,000       3,304,000
PORT ORFORD, OR.........................         502,000         502,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR...........         135,000         135,000
ROGUE RIVER, OR.........................       1,056,000       1,056,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR.....         120,000         120,000
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR.......................         878,000         878,000
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR....................         175,000         175,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, OR.............................           7,000           7,000
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR...............          13,000          13,000
UMPQUA RIVER, OR........................       1,294,000       1,294,000
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR         497,000         497,000
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR....         499,000         499,000
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR...................         590,000         590,000
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR..............       2,891,000       3,991,000
                                                                        
              PENNSYLVANIA                                              
                                                                        
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA.....................       6,791,000       6,791,000
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA....................         659,000         659,000
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA...............         223,000         223,000
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA.....................         916,000         916,000
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA.....................       2,236,000       2,236,000
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA................       1,149,000       1,149,000
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA.....................       1,512,000       1,512,000
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA..................       1,648,000       1,648,000
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA...................         672,000         672,000
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA......         916,000         916,000
ERIE HARBOR, PA.........................          15,000          15,000
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA............         723,000         723,000
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA................         688,000         688,000
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR,                                 
 PA.....................................         271,000         271,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA.......         215,000         215,000
JOHNSTOWN, PA...........................         288,000         288,000
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA..       1,423,000       1,423,000
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA.....................       1,121,000       1,121,000
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA.................       1,930,000       1,930,000
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA...................      14,438,000      14,438,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA...........          15,000          15,000
PROMPTON LAKE, PA.......................         408,000         408,000
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA........................          14,000          14,000
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA.......................       3,084,000       3,084,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA.....          56,000          56,000
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA....................          50,000          50,000
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA.................       2,167,000       2,167,000
STILLWATER LAKE, PA.....................         333,000         333,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, PA.............................          66,000          66,000
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA.................       1,917,000       1,917,000
TIONESTA LAKE, PA.......................       1,437,000       1,437,000
UNION CITY LAKE, PA.....................         284,000         284,000
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA.................         798,000         798,000
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA................         566,000         566,000
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD......       1,795,000       1,795,000
                                                                        
              RHODE ISLAND                                              
                                                                        
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI.......           5,000           5,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI...........         527,000         527,000
PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI.........       1,143,000       1,143,000
                                                                        
             SOUTH CAROLINA                                             
                                                                        
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC......       3,325,000       3,525,000
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...................       4,716,000       5,616,000
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.....       3,211,000       3,211,000
FOLLY RIVER, SC.........................         230,000         490,000
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC...................       2,414,000       2,414,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC.......          24,000          24,000
LITTLE RIVER INLET, SC AND NC...........  ..............          40,000
MURRELLS INLET, SC......................  ..............          42,000
PORT ROYAL, SC..........................  ..............         100,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC...........          40,000          40,000
SHIPYARD RIVER, SC......................         270,000         270,000
TOWN CREEK, SC..........................         340,000         340,000
                                                                        
              SOUTH DAKOTA                                              
                                                                        
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD...........       6,476,000       6,676,000
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD.....................         204,000         204,000
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.............         184,000         184,000
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD.       7,417,000       7,717,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD.......          14,000          14,000
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN................       1,440,000       1,440,000
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND                                    
 GAVINS PT, SD, MT......................       3,000,000       3,000,000
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND..........       8,467,000       9,217,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD.....          70,000          70,000
                                                                        
                TENNESSEE                                               
                                                                        
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN....................       5,635,000       5,635,000
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN...............       4,826,000       4,826,000
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN......       4,554,000       4,554,000
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN....................       3,810,000       3,810,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.......          18,000          18,000
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN....       3,571,000       3,571,000
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN............       5,925,000       5,925,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN...........           5,000           5,000
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.....................      12,886,000      12,886,000
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN...................         285,000         285,000
                                                                        
                  TEXAS                                                 
                                                                        
AQUILLA LAKE, TX........................         585,000         585,000
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE                                      
 CONTROL--AREA VI.......................       1,090,000       1,090,000
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX............         909,000         909,000
BARDWELL LAKE, TX.......................       1,465,000       1,465,000
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX................       1,170,000       1,170,000
BELTON LAKE, TX.........................       2,835,000       2,835,000
BENBROOK LAKE, TX.......................       2,080,000       2,080,000
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX................       1,400,000       1,400,000
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX.......       2,175,000       2,175,000
CANYON LAKE, TX.........................       2,516,000       2,516,000
CHANNEL TO PORT MANSFIELD, TX...........       1,790,000       1,790,000
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.........       6,845,000       6,845,000
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX............       5,895,000       5,895,000
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT,                                 
 TX.....................................          14,000          14,000
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES,                                 
 TX.....................................       2,584,000       2,584,000
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.....................       4,050,000       4,050,000
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX........       1,755,000       1,755,000
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX...........       1,160,000       1,160,000
GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX...............         100,000         100,000
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX................       1,578,000       1,578,000
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX......................       2,388,000       2,388,000
GREENS BAYOU CHANNEL, TX................         660,000         660,000
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX..........      18,381,000      18,381,000
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX....................       1,378,000       1,378,000
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX................       7,930,000       7,930,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX.......         355,000         355,000
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX....................       3,302,000       3,302,000
JOE POOL LAKE, TX.......................         863,000         863,000
LAKE KEMP, TX...........................         208,000         208,000
LAVON LAKE, TX..........................       3,851,000       3,851,000
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX......................       3,170,000       3,170,000
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX..............         110,000         110,000
MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER, TX.........       1,770,000       1,770,000
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX..................       1,554,000       1,554,000
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE                                          
 GEORGETOWN, TX.........................       1,817,000       1,817,000
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX.............         893,000         893,000
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX......................         928,000         928,000
PROCTOR LAKE, TX........................       1,711,000       1,711,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX...........          50,000          50,000
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX....................         777,000         777,000
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX..............       7,200,000       7,200,000
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX.......       4,346,000       4,346,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX.....         222,000         222,000
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX.....................       3,033,000       3,033,000
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX...............       1,888,000       1,888,000
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX.       1,612,000       1,612,000
WACO LAKE, TX...........................       2,299,000       2,299,000
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX....................         780,000         780,000
WHITNEY LAKE, TX........................       3,815,000       3,815,000
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX..........       2,605,000       2,605,000
                                                                        
                  UTAH                                                  
                                                                        
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT.......          55,000          55,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT.....         496,000         496,000
                                                                        
                 VERMONT                                                
                                                                        
BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT..................         731,000         731,000
BURLINGTON HARBOR BREAKWATER, VT........  ..............         875,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT.......          28,000          28,000
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY....         536,000         536,000
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT.................         586,000         586,000
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT..............         680,000         680,000
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT......................         547,000         547,000
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT...................         602,000         602,000
                                                                        
                VIRGINIA                                                
                                                                        
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, VA......       2,300,000       2,300,000
CHANNEL TO NEWPORT NEWS, VA.............          45,000          45,000
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA..................         800,000         800,000
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA.......       1,602,000       1,602,000
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS                                   
 HBR, VA (DRIFT REM.....................         912,000         912,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA.......          84,000          84,000
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.................       3,333,000       3,333,000
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC.............       7,950,000       7,950,000
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA..       1,246,000       1,246,000
NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF                                           
 OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V...............         280,000         280,000
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA......................       6,483,000       6,483,000
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA......         333,000         333,000
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA.......................       2,027,000       2,027,000
POTOMAC RIVER AT ALEXANDRIA, VA.........         180,000         180,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA...........         723,000         723,000
RUDEE INLET, VA.........................         794,000         794,000
THIMBLE SHOAL CHANNEL, VA...............         159,000         159,000
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA...       1,115,000       1,115,000
                                                                        
               WASHINGTON                                               
                                                                        
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA....................       1,019,000       1,019,000
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA AND OR..           3,000           3,000
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND                                 
 ISLAND, WA.............................           6,000           6,000
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA..       1,212,000       1,212,000
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA.....       6,900,000       6,900,000
GRAYS HARBOR (SOUTH JETTY EXTEN.),                                      
 CHEHALIS RIVER, WA.....................  ..............       4,000,000
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA...................       1,421,000       1,421,000
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.............       2,269,000       2,269,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA.......         175,000         175,000
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA..........       7,608,000       7,608,000
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA...........       1,069,000       1,069,000
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA..........       2,389,000       2,389,000
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA.......       1,169,000       1,169,000
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA.....................       1,722,000       1,722,000
MT ST HELENS, WA........................         404,000         404,000
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA....................       2,188,000       2,188,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA...........         302,000         302,000
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA....       1,013,000       1,013,000
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA....................       1,213,000       1,213,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA.....         400,000         400,000
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA......................         780,000         780,000
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA.................         180,000         180,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, WA.............................          58,000          58,000
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA...................         457,000         457,000
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA..............          68,000          68,000
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR......       1,929,000       1,929,000
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA............          75,000       3,000,000
SEATTLE HARBOR, EAST WATERWAY CHANNEL                                   
 DEEPENING, WA..........................  ..............       1,400,000
                                                                        
              WEST VIRGINIA                                             
                                                                        
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV.....................         976,000         976,000
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV......................       1,021,000       1,121,000
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV.....................       1,294,000       1,294,000
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV......................       1,513,000       1,513,000
ELK RIVER HARBOR, WV....................         385,000         385,000
ELKINS, WV..............................          11,000          11,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV.......         103,000         103,000
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV........       8,130,000       8,130,000
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV.....................       1,484,000       1,484,000
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV..............         914,000         914,000
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV...................       1,298,000       1,298,000
SUTTON LAKE, WV.........................       1,470,000       1,470,000
TYGART LAKE, WV.........................       2,235,000       2,235,000
                                                                        
                WISCONSIN                                               
                                                                        
ASHLAND HARBOR, WI......................         171,000         171,000
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI................         674,000         674,000
FOX RIVER, WI...........................       2,360,000       2,360,000
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI....................       1,212,000       1,212,000
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI (DIKE DISPOSAL)....       3,603,000       3,603,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI.......          42,000          42,000
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI.....................         325,000         325,000
LA FARGE LAKE, WI.......................          51,000          51,000
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI....................         274,000         274,000
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI....................       1,629,000       1,629,000
PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR, WI..............         201,000         201,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI...........           8,000           8,000
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI....................         619,000         619,000
STURGEON BAY, WI........................         475,000         475,000
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY                                       
 WATERS, WI.............................          27,000          27,000
                                                                        
                 WYOMING                                                
                                                                        
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY.................       1,506,000       1,506,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY.....         340,000         340,000
    MISCELLANEOUS.......................                                
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM..........       4,000,000       4,000,000
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)....       2,000,000       2,000,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE                                      
 MONITORING SYSTEM......................       1,075,000       1,075,000
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL                                   
 RESEARCH (DOER)........................       8,000,000       8,000,000
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT                                   
 (DOTS) PROGRAM.........................       2,000,000       2,000,000
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS                                
 AND LIFELINES..........................       2,000,000       2,000,000
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT..........  ..............         500,000
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION..         575,000         575,000
MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR O&M................         600,000         600,000
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN MAIN STEM MODEL                                 
 DEVELOPMENT............................       2,000,000       2,000,000
MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION                                        
 PROJECTS...............................       2,000,000       2,000,000
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.............          40,000          40,000
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS                                
 (NEPP).................................       6,000,000       6,000,000
NATIONAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT                                  
 (NRMS) PROGRAM.........................       1,850,000       1,850,000
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT                                     
 PROGRAM................................         515,000         515,000
PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS                                  
 (SECTION 3)............................          50,000          50,000
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR                                    
 REHABILITATION.........................         675,000         675,000
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS...............         500,000         500,000
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT                                      
 (WOTS) PROGRAM.........................         850,000         850,000
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS..........       4,400,000       4,400,000
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND                                   
 SLIPPAGE...............................     -22,918,000     -29,268,000
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..   1,603,000,000   1,667,572,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF PROJECT:                                                        
    (N)  NAVIGATION                                                     
    (BE)  BEACH EROSION CONTROL                                         
    (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL                                                 
    (MP)  MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER                                 

    The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to 
provide adequate resources and attention to operation and 
maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal 
investment. Yet current and projected budgetary constraints 
require the Committee to limit the amount of work that can be 
accomplished in the fiscal year. In order to cope with the 
current situation, the Corps has had to defer or delay 
scheduled maintenance activities.
    Maintenance backlogs continue to grow with much of the 
backlog being essential maintenance dredging needed to keep the 
Nation's ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to 
efficiently handle important national and international trade 
activities. Yet the Committee is aware that out-year budget 
planning guidance for the Corps of Engineers projects that the 
current appropriations for their critical operation and 
maintenance activities will continue to decline for the 
foreseeable future. If additional resources are not made 
available, the Committee will be forced to cut back on 
services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and 
activities.
    The Committee is aware of the Corps' efforts to stretch the 
limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect 
savings through a variety of means. As more and more projects 
enter the inventory and budgetary constraints continue, it is 
clear that the Corps will need to find innovated ways to 
accomplish required O&M work nationwide. Adjustment in lower 
priority programs and noncritical work should be made in 
conjunction with efforts to optimize the use of the limited 
resources in order to maximize the public benefit.
    St. Paul Harbor, AK.--The Committee has provided $500,000 
for the Corps to accomplish breakwater repairs at St. Paul 
Harbor, AK.
    Wrangell Narrows, AK.--The Committee understands that rock 
pinnacles pose a safety hazard in the Wrangell Narrows, AK, 
navigation channel. Funding of $600,000 has been included for 
the Corps to remove these rock impediments.
    Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, AL.--An amount of 
$20,000,000 is recommended for maintenance of the Black 
Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers navigation system in Alabama. The 
increase over the budget request will allow the Corps to 
perform rock dredging, purchase land and contract dredge 
material disposal areas, and carry out other essential 
operation and maintenance activities.
    Mobile Harbor, AL.--An additional $4,000,000 has been 
recommended for the Mobile Harbor, AL, navigation project for 
the Corps to undertake additional maintenance dredging. The 
amount recommended includes $600,000 for the Corps to perform 
environmental clearance activities for maintenance at Arlington 
Channel.
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, AL-MS.--The Committee 
recommendation for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project 
includes an increase of $1,200,000 for the Corps to perform 
additional dredging in critical reaches of the waterway.
    McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system, 
Arkansas.--The Committee has provided an increase of $1,600,000 
for the Corps to continue to install additional tow haulage 
equipment at locks on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 
navigation system.
    La Grange Bayou, FL.--An additional $250,000 has been 
provided for the La Grange Bayou, FL, project for the Corps to 
perform environmental studies and water quality certification 
work prior to maintenance dredging.
    Ponce DeLeon Inlet, FL.--The Committee has provided 
$4,000,000 for the Ponce DeLeon Inlet project in Florida. The 
increased funding over the budget request is provided for 
construction of a north jetty extension to relieve erosion 
pressures on the jetty.
    Kaskaskia River navigation, Illinois.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $490,000 for the Corps to examine the 
feasibility of operating remotely the low volume Kaskaskia lock 
and dam from a high volume lock and dam located elsewhere 
within the St. Louis district.
    Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA.--An additional amount of 
$3,000,000 over the budget request is provided for the Gulf 
Intracoastal Waterway project in Louisiana for additional 
dredging, lock repairs and equipment purchases.
    Portland Harbor, ME.--Sufficient funding over the budget 
request is provided for the Portland Harbor project in Maine 
for the Corps to complete plans and specifications and to award 
a construction contract for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
    Pentwater Harbor, MI.--The Committee has included 
$1,900,000 the Corps to advertise and award a construction 
contract to initiate phase two of the repair to the north and 
south piers at Pentwater Harbor, MI.
    Water control management regionalization.--The Committee 
has become aware of a plan for regionalization of water control 
management activities for projects operated by the Corps of 
Engineers. The Committee requests a report outlining the plan 
and any impacts on current Corps of Engineer districts and 
division operations and resources prior to adoption of the 
plan.
    Missouri River between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe, ND.--The 
Corps is directed to use $750,000 of available funds to 
undertake bank stabilization for the most serious erosion sites 
along 174 miles of riverbank identified in a 1997 report by the 
North Dakota State Water Commission.
    Missouri River between Fort Peck and Culbertson, MT.--The 
Corps is urged to use nontraditional means of combating river 
bank erosion along the Missouri River between Fort Peck and 
Culbertson, MT.
    Cochecho River, NH.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for the Cochecho River, NH, project for the Corps to 
prepare plans and specifications and initiate construction of 
an upland disposal site.
    Conchas Dam and Lake, New Mexico.--The Committee is aware 
of Corps efforts to be of assistance in resolving recreation 
facility problems at Conchas Lake in New Mexico. The Corps is 
to be commended for their efforts and is strongly encouraged to 
continue to provide assistance to the greatest extent possible.
    Upper Rio Grande water operation model, New Mexico.--The 
Committee has provide $850,000 for scheduling reservoir 
operations for the Corps to continue joint activities with 
other Federal agencies related to the need for an Upper Rio 
Grande water operations model to help water managers in flood 
control operations, water accounting, and evaluation of water 
operations alternatives. The Corps is to provide a report to 
the Committee on progress and plans to complete this activity. 
The Committee expects the Corps to coordinate and consult with 
the Bureau of Reclamation in preparing this report.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee 
recommendation for the Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea project in 
North Dakota includes $100,000 for the Corps to continue 
mosquito control activities.
    Delaware River, Philadelphia to the sea (Pea Patch Island), 
New Jersey and Delaware.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $1,500,000 for the Corps to begin the process of 
addressing the erosion of the shoreline in the vicinity of Pea 
Patch Island located in the Delaware River east of Delaware 
City, DE. The additional funds will allow the Corps to review 
State-prepared design documents for the restoration, perform 
soil sample testing, coordinate with the State historic 
society, prepare NEPA documents, and modify plans and 
specification in preparation for project implementation.
    Columbia River navigation channel, Oregon and Washington.--
The Committee is aware that the authorized 40-foot Columbia 
River navigation channel is subject to shoaling at a number of 
locations in the river, causing restrictions in channel draft. 
The Committee directs the Corps to use its existing authorities 
to dredge a 5-foot overdraft; and, when appropriate, to conduct 
advance maintenance dredging to assure that project depth of 40 
feet is maintained to the maximum extent possible.
    Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers, below Vancouver, WA, 
and Portland, OR.--The Committee is aware of the severely 
deteriorated condition of the north breakwater at Astoria east 
boat basin in Oregon. The Committee recommendation includes 
$4,800,000 for the Corps to proceed to initiate and complete 
rehabilitation of the eastern 400 feet of the north breakwater.
    Yaquina Bay and Harbor, North Marina breakwater, Oregon.--
The Committee has increased the funding for the Yaquina Bay and 
Harbor, OR project by $1,100,000 to allow the Corps to initiate 
the first phase of work to reconstruct the deteriorated North 
Marina breakwater.
    Charleston Harbor, SC.--The Committee has included an 
additional $900,000 for the Corps to undertake dike repair, 
ditching and dewatering the south cell of Clouter Creek 
disposal area in South Carolina.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.--An additional $200,000 
is provided for the Corps to dredge the McClellan branch of the 
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in South Carolina.
    Big Bend Dam, Lake Sharpe, SD.--The Committee has included 
an additional $200,000 for the Corps to continue repairs to 
facilities damages in flooding at the Big Bend Dam, Lake 
Sharpe, SD, project.
    Fort Randall Dam, Lake Francis Case, SD.--The 
recommendation of $7,717,000 for the Fort Randall Dam, Lake 
Francis Case project in South Dakota includes $300,000 for the 
Corps to continue repairs to facilities damaged in flooding.
    Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, SD.--The Committee recommendation for 
Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe project in South Dakota is $9,217,000 and 
includes $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to identify ways 
to alleviate sediment buildup near Pierre and Fort Pierre, SD, 
and $150,000 to repair facilities damaged by flooding.
    Connecticut River basin (master plan), Vermont.--The Corps 
of Engineers should, in the development of the Connecticut 
River basin master plan, coordinate their work with other 
environmental assessments which are also underway.
    Kennewick Man skeletal remains.--The Committee continues to 
be concerned that the Corps of Engineers is not acting in an 
impartial manner concerning the disposition of the Kennewick 
Man remains and notes recent actions by the Corps that resulted 
in the loss of a potential piece of the skeleton. The Committee 
continues to believe the Corps should work cooperatively with 
all affected interest groups in determining the treatment and 
disposition of the Kennewick Man skeleton. The Committee 
expects the Corps to act objectively in all areas concerning 
these remains and in resolving all questions surrounding access 
to and the study and disposition of the remains.
    Willapa River and Harbor, WA.--The Committee has been 
informed about the ongoing serious erosion problem at the 
Willapa River and Harbor, WA, navigation project. Congress 
provided an additional $2,425,000 in appropriations for the 
current fiscal year to help address the situation, but erosion 
continues to threaten public facilities. The Committee has 
provided an additional $500,000 for the Corps to finalize a 
plan to resolve this ongoing problem. In the interim, the Corps 
strongly urged to use available emergency funds, as 
appropriate, to protect threatened public facilities. Funding 
is also provided to determine whether the navigation channel 
can be maintained cost effectively.
    Bluestone Lake, WV.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete a 
reevaluation study of a possible hydroelectric plant addition 
to the Bluestone Dam in West Virginia.
    In addition, the attention of the Corps of Engineers is 
directed to the following projects in need of maintenance or 
review and for which the Committee has received requests: the 
need for aquatic weed control in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta of 
Alabama.
    The Committee has been informed of the use by the 
Mississippi Valley Division of a new technology, passive 
microwave radiometry, to measure the soil moisture content 
along the Mississippi River levee system to locate areas of 
levee saturation and underseepage. The Committee supports the 
application of this type of new technology and encourages the 
Corps to expand its use, if appropriate. The Corps is requested 
to provide the Committee with a report on the effectiveness and 
cost comparison of microwave radiometry in levee monitoring and 
other relevant applications, including advisability of 
expanding the use of the technology.

                           regulatory program

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $106,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     117,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     106,000,000

    An appropriation of $106,000,000 is recommended for 
regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers.
    This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs 
to administer laws pertaining to regulation of navigable waters 
and wetlands of the United States in accordance with the Rivers 
and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the 
Marine Protection Act of 1972.
    The Committee is concerned that the Corps has not proceeded 
to fully implement the administrative appeals process for which 
funding was provided last year. The Committee recommendation, 
while holding the Regulatory Program at the 1998 level of 
funding, supports the implementation of the administrative 
appeals process, including appeals related to jurisdictional 
determinations. The Corps is to report to the Committee on its 
progress in implementing the program at the hearing on the 
fiscal year 2000 budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes $320,000 for the 
Corps to initiate and complete the Yellowstone River special 
area management plan, Gardiner to Springdale, MT, study which 
will assess the long-term effects of streambank stabilization. 
Information provided by the study should help in making timely 
decisions based on a watershed approach, and possibly result in 
a general permit for the area. The Committee expects that this 
effort will be coordinated with the Yellowstone River task 
force.

                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    This activity provides for flood emergency preparation, 
flood fighting and rescue operations, and repair of flood 
control and Federal hurricane or shore protection works. It 
also provides for emergency supplies of clean drinking water 
where the source has been contaminated and in drought 
distressed areas, provision of adequate supplies of water for 
human and livestock consumption.
    The Committee understands that, based on the average yearly 
funding requirement, additional appropriations are not required 
for fiscal year 1999.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $140,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     140,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     140,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000 
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 1999. This is 
the same as the amount requested.
    The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites 
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 
[FUSRAP] was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the 
Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, Public Law 105-62. The Committee is concerned that the 
Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers have not been 
able to enter into an agreement on the functions of the program 
assumed by the Corps and, therefore, finds it necessary to 
include clarifying language in this year's bill.
    The FUSRAP Program 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 sites have 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 civil works program.
    The Committee directs DOE and the Corps of Engineers to 
enter into a memorandum of understanding [MOU] to remedy any 
misunderstanding that may exist between the two agencies as to 
the roles and responsibilities related to the cleanup program. 
Such an MOU is essential to improving the exchange of 
information and resolution of future issues.

                            general expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $148,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     148,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     148,000,000

    This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, 
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research 
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $148,000,000.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $41,153,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      40,948,000
Committee recommendation................................      44,948,000

    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 1999 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
is $44,948,000. An appropriation of $28,189,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction and $10,476,000 
for commission activities.
    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central 
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; 
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these 
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and 
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in 
that account. The act further assigns responsibilities for 
carrying out the act to the Secretary of the Interior and 
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of 
Reclamation.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      Water and Related Resources

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $694,348,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     640,124,000
Committee recommendation................................     672,119,000

    An appropriation of $672,119,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    Water and related resources incorporates activities 
previously funded under general investigations, construction 
program, and operation and maintenance.
    The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 
following table along with the budget request.

                                                   BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES                                                   
                                                                  [Amounts in dollars]                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Budget estimate                Committee recommendation     
                                                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Total Federal     Allocated to                          Facility                            Facility    
                Project title                       cost              date            Resource         operations,        Resource         operations,  
                                                                                   management and   maintenance, and   management and   maintenance, and
                                                                                     development     rehabilitation      development     rehabilitation 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
         WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
                   ARIZONA                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT.  ................  ................  ................         7,080,000  ................         7,080,000
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT (LCRBDF)............     4,279,783,350     3,346,237,350        49,908,000  ................        46,218,000  ................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE                                                                                                            
 I..........................................       448,076,000       406,728,936         2,407,000         6,966,000         2,407,000         6,966,000
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM..       102,373,078        92,942,165         2,950,000  ................         2,950,000  ................
NORTHERN AZ WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                              
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           650,000  ................           650,000  ................
SALT RIVER PROJECT, HORSE MESA DAM..........        16,767,000         3,000,000  ................         1,500,000  ................         1,500,000
SOUTH/CENTRAL AZ WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH                                                                                                              
 ASST PROGRAM...............................  ................  ................         1,050,000  ................         1,050,000  ................
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT        58,039,000        11,342,999         3,000,000  ................         3,000,000  ................
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION............         5,935,000         2,800,000           400,000  ................           400,000  ................
YUMA AREA PROJECTS..........................  ................  ................  ................        22,213,000  ................        22,213,000
                                                                                                                                                        
                 CALIFORNIA                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
CACHUMA PROJECT.............................        28,306,000        22,689,000           531,000         6,160,000           531,000         6,160,000
CALIFORNIA WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                               
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................         1,863,000  ................         1,863,000  ................
CALLEGUAS MUINICIPAL WATER DISTRICT                                                                                                                     
 RECYCLING PROJECT..........................        20,000,000  ................         1,300,000  ................  ................  ................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:                                                                                                                                 
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION.................     2,719,575,904       528,115,189         9,722,000         9,558,000         9,276,000         9,558,000
    CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT..  ................  ................         1,222,000  ................         1,222,000  ................
    DELTA DIVISION..........................       362,186,018       211,134,320        13,216,000         4,791,000        16,216,000         4,791,000
    EAST SIDE DIVISION......................  ................  ................           413,000         3,543,000           413,000         3,543,000
    FRIANT DIVISION.........................           421,000            75,000         2,602,000         2,196,000         2,602,000         2,196,000
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS..........       604,160,000       313,532,670        15,846,000         2,754,000        17,846,000         2,754,000
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION...............       528,187,677       373,542,691        11,926,000           735,000        12,426,000           735,000
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION.....................       354,993,000       307,949,201           692,000  ................           692,000  ................
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION....................       215,692,000        57,105,000         7,900,000  ................         7,900,000  ................
    SHASTA DIVISION.........................       302,434,067       275,300,372         4,457,000         8,965,000         4,457,000         8,965,000
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION..................       319,094,409       316,959,409         3,653,000         6,759,000         3,653,000         6,759,000
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS..............  ................  ................         1,014,000         5,063,000         1,014,000         5,063,000
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT     1,457,608,570       571,321,359         5,331,000         6,993,000         5,331,000         6,993,000
    YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION.........  ................  ................         2,000,000  ................         2,000,000  ................
LONG BEACH/LA COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION                                                                                                                  
 PROJECT....................................        15,100,000  ................         1,300,000  ................  ................  ................
LOS ANGELES AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE        69,970,000        50,330,000        10,000,000  ................        10,000,000  ................
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING                                                                                                             
 PROJECT....................................        20,000,000  ................         1,300,000  ................  ................  ................
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION                                                                                                                
 PROJECT....................................        20,000,000  ................         1,000,000  ................  ................  ................
ORLAND PROJECT..............................  ................  ................  ................           685,000  ................           685,000
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.................        10,000,000           900,000           400,000  ................           400,000  ................
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM....       172,590,000        28,788,000        13,000,000  ................        13,000,000  ................
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT...................        38,090,000        22,792,000         2,500,000  ................         2,500,000  ................
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE...       109,959,000        10,033,679         3,000,000  ................         3,000,000  ................
SOLANO PROJECT..............................  ................  ................           906,000           975,000           906,000           975,000
SO. CALIF. COMPREHENSIVE WATER RECLAMATION                                                                                                              
 STUDY......................................         3,491,999         3,291,999           200,000  ................           200,000  ................
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER MGMT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                            
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           680,000  ................           680,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                  COLORADO                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
ANIMAS-LAPLATA PROJECT, SECTIONS 5 AND 8....       512,870,700        76,080,623         3,000,000  ................         3,000,000  ................
COLLBRAN PROJECT............................  ................  ................         1,206,000         1,039,000         1,206,000         1,039,000
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT...............  ................  ................           104,000         7,158,000           104,000         7,158,000
COLORADO WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                                 
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           733,000  ................           733,000  ................
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT....................  ................  ................            50,000            12,000            50,000            12,000
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT..................  ................  ................           160,000         4,447,000           160,000         4,447,000
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP...................  ................  ................           506,000           150,000           506,000           150,000
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT...  ................  ................           722,000           908,000           722,000           908,000
LOWER COLORADO WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH                                                                                                                
 ASST PROGRAM...............................  ................  ................           500,000  ................           500,000  ................
LOWER GUNNISON BASIN UNIT, CRBSCP...........  ................  ................  ................           318,000  ................           318,000
MANCOS PROJECT..............................  ................  ................            55,000            18,000            55,000            18,000
PARADOX UNIT, CRBSCP........................  ................  ................  ................         2,474,000  ................         2,474,000
PINE RIVER PROJECT..........................  ................  ................            76,000            46,000            76,000            46,000
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN/                                                                                                                  
 CONEJOS....................................  ................  ................           234,000         3,152,000           234,000         3,152,000
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT.........................  ................  ................            79,000            18,000            79,000            18,000
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN SELENIUM STUDY...           540,000  ................           440,000  ................           440,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                   HAWAII                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL STUDY.....           300,000  ................  ................  ................           200,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                    IDAHO                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
BOISE AREA PROJECTS.........................  ................  ................         2,837,000         2,340,000         2,837,000         2,340,000
COLUMBIA-SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT       111,086,000        41,035,305        13,116,000  ................        13,116,000  ................
DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, BOISE PROJECT.           850,000  ................            50,000  ................            50,000  ................
IDAHO WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST PROGRAM  ................  ................           715,000  ................           715,000  ................
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS......................  ................  ................         3,639,000         1,832,000         3,639,000         1,832,000
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAINWATER PROJECT.......         1,830,000           536,374           300,000  ................           300,000  ................
MACCALL AREA WASTEWATER RECLAMATION AND                                                                                                                 
 REUSE......................................         6,100,000  ................  ................  ................         3,600,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                   KANSAS                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
EQUUS BEDS GROUNDWATER RECHARGE.............         3,200,000         2,000,000  ................  ................           200,000  ................
KANSAS WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                                   
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           613,000  ................           613,000  ................
WICHITA PROJECT.............................  ................  ................  ................           188,000  ................           188,000
                                                                                                                                                        
                   MONTANA                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
FORT PECK RURAL WATER SYSTEM................         5,800,000           300,000  ................  ................         3,000,000  ................
FORT PECK RESERVATION, MR&I WATER SYSTEM....           600,000           240,000  ................  ................           360,000  ................
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT........................  ................  ................  ................           770,000  ................           770,000
MILK RIVER PROJECT..........................  ................  ................           250,000           479,000           250,000           479,000
MONTANA WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                                  
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           863,000  ................           863,000  ................
ROCKY BOYS INDIAN WTR RIGHTS SETTLEMENT                                                                                                                 
 STUDY......................................  ................  ................         1,000,000  ................         1,000,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                  NEBRASKA                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT........................  ................  ................            44,000            22,000            44,000            22,000
NEBRASKA WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                                 
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           337,000  ................           337,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                   NEVADA                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
CARSON RIVER BASIN GROUNDWATER STUDY, NV....           300,000  ................  ................  ................           150,000  ................
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVEL., NV.....           800,000  ................  ................  ................           600,000  ................
LAS VEGAS SHALLOW AQUIFER DESALINATION, NV..        20,000,000  ................  ................  ................         3,250,000  ................
NEWLANDS PROJECT............................  ................  ................         5,360,000           344,000         5,360,000           344,000
SOUTHERN NEVADA/UTAH WATER MGMT AND TECH                                                                                                                
 ASST PRO-  GRAM............................  ................  ................           125,000  ................           125,000  ................
SPARKS WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE..........           250,000  ................  ................  ................           250,000  ................
WALKER RIVER BASIN..........................         1,300,000           700,000  ................  ................           300,000  ................
WASHOE PROJECT..............................  ................  ................         1,021,000           590,000         1,021,000           590,000
                                                                                                                                                        
                 NEW MEXICO                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
CARLSBAD PROJECT............................  ................  ................           845,000           490,000           845,000           490,000
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT...................         1,402,992           963,992         2,015,000         8,929,000         2,015,000         8,929,000
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT.....  ................  ................  ................           178,000  ................           178,000
RIO GRANDE PROJECT..........................  ................  ................           685,000         2,972,000           685,000         2,972,000
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN WATER MGMT AND TECH                                                                                                                
 ASST PRO-  GRAM............................  ................  ................           171,000  ................           171,000  ................
SAN JUAN GALLUP-NAVAJO WATER SUPPLY.........           938,000           788,000  ................  ................           150,000  ................
SAN JUAN RIVER GALLUP. MT. TAYLOR MINE......           500,000  ................  ................  ................           200,000  ................
SOUTHERN NM/WEST TX WATER MGMT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                            
 PRO-  GRAM.................................  ................  ................           225,000  ................           225,000  ................
UPPER RIO GRANDE BSN WATER MGMT AND TECH                                                                                                                
 ASST PRO-  GRAM............................  ................  ................           356,000  ................         2,356,000  ................
VELARDE COMMUNITY DITCH PROJECT.............        29,463,870        18,008,870         3,995,000  ................         3,995,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                NORTH DAKOTA                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
DAKOTA TRIBES WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                            
 PRO-  GRAM.................................  ................  ................           165,000  ................           165,000  ................
DAKOTA WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                                   
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           362,000  ................           487,000  ................
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P-SMBP.............     1,524,499,440       617,139,251        20,402,000         3,712,000        26,402,000         3,712,000
                                                                                                                                                        
                  OKLAHOMA                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
ARBUCKLE PROJECT............................  ................  ................  ................           140,000  ................           140,000
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT.........................  ................  ................  ................           493,000  ................           493,000
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT.......................  ................  ................  ................           193,000  ................           193,000
NORMAN PROJECT..............................  ................  ................  ................           126,000  ................           126,000
OKLAHOMA WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                                 
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           367,000  ................           367,000  ................
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT.......................  ................  ................  ................           599,000  ................           599,000
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT.........................  ................  ................  ................           223,000  ................           223,000
                                                                                                                                                        
                   OREGON                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
CENTRAL OREGON IRRIG. SYS. CONSERVATION                                                                                                                 
 FEASIBILITY................................           760,324           635,324           125,000  ................           125,000  ................
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT.......................  ................  ................           116,000           318,000           116,000           318,000
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT.....  ................  ................         1,000,000  ................  ................  ................
DESCHUTES PROJECT...........................  ................  ................           105,000           115,000           105,000           115,000
GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION STUDY.......         1,075,541           925,541            50,000  ................            50,000  ................
KLAMATH PROJECT.............................  ................  ................         5,429,000           354,000         5,429,000           354,000
OREGON WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                                   
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           910,000  ................           910,000  ................
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION..  ................  ................            93,000         1,105,000            93,000         1,105,000
TUALATIN PROJECT............................  ................  ................            13,000            96,000            13,000            96,000
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY.....           899,345           299,345           200,000  ................           200,000  ................
UMATILLA PROJECT............................  ................  ................           331,000         1,815,000           331,000         1,815,000
                                                                                                                                                        
                SOUTH DAKOTA                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
LAKE ANDES-WAGNER, SD.......................           150,000  ................  ................  ................           150,000  ................
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT..............       131,865,000        41,512,081        10,000,000  ................        20,000,000  ................
MNI WICONI PROJECT..........................       302,215,000       113,380,121        26,717,000         4,627,000        29,317,000         4,627,000
RAPID CITY WASTEWATER REUSE STUDY...........           225,000            75,000           100,000  ................           100,000  ................
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT........................  ................  ................  ................            16,000  ................            16,000
                                                                                                                                                        
                    TEXAS                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT......................  ................  ................  ................            92,000  ................            92,000
NUECES RIVER PROJECT........................  ................  ................  ................           324,000  ................           324,000
EL PASO-LAS CRUCES REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE                                                                                                                 
 WATER PROJ.................................         1,550,000           750,000  ................  ................           400,000  ................
EL PASO WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE.........         5,500,000         4,500,000  ................  ................         1,000,000  ................
PALMETTO BEND PROJECT.......................  ................  ................  ................           504,000  ................           504,000
SAN ANGELO PROJECT..........................  ................  ................  ................         2,017,000  ................         2,017,000
TEXAS WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST PROGRAM  ................  ................           325,000  ................           325,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                    UTAH                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT, BONNEVILLE............     1,313,514,980     1,306,801,980           800,000           451,000           800,000           451,000
HYRUM PROJECT...............................  ................  ................            38,000            23,000            38,000            23,000
MOON LAKE PROJECT...........................  ................  ................            11,000            19,000            11,000            19,000
NAVAJO SANDSTON AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY......           875,000  ................  ................  ................           200,000  ................
NEWTON PROJECT..............................  ................  ................            33,000             9,000            33,000             9,000
NORTHERN UTAH WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                            
 PRO-  GRAM.................................  ................  ................           278,000  ................           278,000  ................
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT.........................  ................  ................            47,000            12,000            47,000            12,000
PROVO RIVER PROJECT.........................  ................  ................           265,000           197,000           265,000           197,000
SCOFIELD PROJECT............................  ................  ................            40,000             3,000            40,000             3,000
SOUTHERN UTAH WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                            
 PRO-  GRAM.................................  ................  ................           403,000  ................           403,000  ................
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT...................  ................  ................            84,000             3,000            84,000             3,000
TOOELE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE                                                                                                                   
 PROJECT....................................         2,300,000           500,000           800,000  ................         3,000,000  ................
WEBER BASIN PROJECT.........................        19,639,000        15,929,723         1,445,000         3,525,000         1,445,000         3,525,000
WEBER RIVER PROJECT.........................  ................  ................           210,000             7,000           210,000             7,000
                                                                                                                                                        
                 WASHINGTON                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT......................  ................  ................         3,865,000         6,749,000         3,865,000         6,749,000
WASHINGTON WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                               
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           395,000  ................           395,000  ................
YAKIMA PROJECT..............................  ................  ................           204,000         9,764,000           204,000         9,764,000
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WTR ENHANCEMENT PROJECT..       177,541,000        14,716,257         8,980,000  ................         8,980,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                   WYOMING                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
KENDRICK PROJECT............................  ................  ................             4,000         2,660,000             4,000         2,660,000
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT........................  ................  ................            84,000         1,126,000            84,000         1,126,000
SHOSHONE PROJECT............................  ................  ................            34,000           845,000            34,000           845,000
WYOMING WATER MANAGEMENT AND TECH ASST                                                                                                                  
 PROGRAM....................................  ................  ................           300,000  ................           300,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                   VARIOUS                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, T. II                                                                                                            
 BASINWIDE..................................        75,000,000        13,045,187        12,300,000  ................        12,300,000  ................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SEC. 5......  ................  ................         1,931,000           902,000         1,931,000           902,000
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECT. 8, REC, FISH                                                                                                              
 AND WILDLIFE...............................        85,851,692        49,844,956         3,682,000  ................         3,682,000  ................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT....        70,465,000        47,622,099            75,000  ................            75,000  ................
DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM......  ................  ................         3,505,000  ................         3,505,000  ................
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM...............  ................  ................         5,250,000  ................         5,250,000  ................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION..       137,855,000        44,056,362        15,007,000  ................        15,548,000  ................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION........  ................  ................         1,993,000  ................         1,993,000  ................
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES..........  ................  ................  ................         3,898,000  ................         3,898,000
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM.....  ................  ................  ................           281,000  ................           281,000
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES.................  ................  ................         2,247,000  ................         2,247,000  ................
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT...................  ................  ................         6,129,000  ................         6,129,000  ................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM.....  ................  ................         6,603,000  ................         6,603,000  ................
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS......  ................  ................            24,000           950,000            24,000           950,000
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION.......  ................  ................         1,500,000  ................         1,500,000  ................
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS.....................  ................  ................         8,905,000  ................         8,905,000  ................
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER                                                                                                                 
 MARKETING..................................  ................  ................           884,000  ................           884,000  ................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT  ................  ................            85,000           464,000            85,000           464,000
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--OTHER PROJECTS...  ................  ................         2,668,000        23,678,000         2,668,000        23,678,000
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES......................  ................  ................         1,023,000           550,000         1,023,000           550,000
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM............  ................  ................           371,000             9,000           371,000             9,000
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION..............  ................  ................         4,873,000  ................         4,873,000  ................
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT--TITLE 28.  ................  ................         4,440,000  ................         7,145,000  ................
RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROG.                                                                                                                  
 ADMININISTRATION...........................  ................  ................         1,891,000  ................         1,891,000  ................
SAFETY OF DAMS:                                                                                                                                         
    DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM...........  ................  ................  ................         1,500,000  ................         1,500,000
    SAFETY OF DAMS EVALUATION AND                                                                                                                       
     MODIFICATION...........................  ................  ................  ................        56,550,000  ................        56,550,000
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:                                                                                                                                 
    APPLIED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY                                                                                                                      
     DEVELOPMENT............................       153,479,445        55,021,985         6,140,000  ................         6,140,000  ................
    DESALINATION RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT                                                                                                                   
     PROGRAM................................        17,711,187        11,211,187         1,300,000  ................         3,300,000  ................
    GROUNDWATER RECHARGE....................        24,785,854        24,485,854           250,000  ................           250,000  ................
    HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTR. PROTECTION AND                                                                                                              
     ENHANCE................................         3,500,000  ................           700,000  ................           700,000  ................
    TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT..................         2,324,656           824,656           300,000  ................           300,000  ................
    WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT......        10,418,951         2,918,951         1,500,000  ................         1,500,000  ................
SITE SECURITY...............................  ................  ................  ................         5,000,000  ................         5,000,000
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION..............  ................  ................           144,000  ................           144,000  ................
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY.  ................  ................         2,100,000  ................         2,100,000  ................
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES..........  ................  ................           100,000  ................           100,000  ................
UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE.....................  ................  ................  ................         1,500,000  ................         1,500,000
WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION PROGRAM.......  ................  ................         7,551,000  ................         7,551,000  ................
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT........................  ................  ................         7,296,000  ................         7,296,000  ................
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIPATED                                                                                                            
 DELAYS.....................................  ................  ................  ................       -30,093,000  ................       -35,743,000
WORKING CAPITAL FUND TRANSFER...............  ................  ................       -25,800,000  ................       -25,800,000  ................
                                             ===========================================================================================================
      TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES....  ................  ................       396,863,000       243,261,000       434,508,000       237,611,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Central Arizona project, Arizona.--The Committee has 
recommended an appropriation of $46,218,000 for the central 
Arizona project. The Committee understands that the budget 
request for fiscal year 1999 included $560,000 for the Tucson 
Reliability Division of the central Arizona project for use on 
feasibility investigations and facilities planning for CAP 
reliability options; and that affected stakeholders had 
differing desires on the level of funding for these studies. 
Discussion among the parties resulted in agreement on a budget 
of $370,000 for the Tucson reliability work for fiscal year 
1999, resulting in a $190,000 reduction in the amount of 
funding that is needed. Field reviews are to be kept to a 
minimum as well as land, design, and fish and wildlife 
activities.
    The Committee has also recommended a reduction of 
$3,500,000 in project fish and wildlife coordination, 
mitigation, and native species activities.
    Central Valley project, American River Division, 
California.--The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$5,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to make the site 
selection and initiate construction of a permanent replacement 
pumping facility for the Placer County Water Agency. No funding 
is included for the Folsom Dam temperature control device due 
to lack of construction authorization.
    Central Valley project, Delta Division, California.--The 
Committee has provided $3,250,000 for the construction of the 
fish screen at Contra Costa pumping plant intake on Rock Slough 
in California.
    Central Valley project, miscellaneous project programs, 
California.--An appropriation of $20,600,000 is provided for 
Central Valley project, miscellaneous project programs in 
California. Included in this amount is $5,500,000 for design 
and construction of facilities to upgrade the Glenn-Colusa 
Irrigation District's facilities needed to deliver refuge water 
supplies to the west Sacramento complex of refuges.
    Central Valley project, Sacramento River Division, 
California.--The Committee recommendation for the Sacramento 
River Division of the Central Valley project in California 
includes $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue the 
Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Program.
    Hawaii water management and technical assistance studies.--
The Committee has included $200,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to undertake appraisal level activities related to 
developing plans to increase the delivery efficiency of 
existing water systems developed to serve sugarcane plantations 
and surrounding communities in the State of Hawaii.
    Fort Hall Indian Reservation, ID.--The Committee directs 
the Bureau of Reclamation to use $200,000 of available funds to 
begin a feasibility study to address the serious dangers of 
ground water contamination at the Fort Hall Indian Reservation 
in Idaho.
    Garrison diversion project, North Dakota.--The Committee 
recommendation for the Garrison diversion project is 
$30,114,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request. 
The Bureau of Reclamation to continue development of municipal, 
rural, and industrial water programs for the Oaks test area and 
for Indian water systems. The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000, for continued development of Indian municipal, 
rural, and irrigation facilities.
    San Juan River Gallup, Mount Taylor pipeline, NM.--The 
Committee is pleased with the cooperation and signing of the 
memorandum of agreement regarding conducting a feasibility 
study of a pipeline to provide water from Mount Taylor mine in 
New Mexico. The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to 
move expeditiously on activities necessary to confirm the 
quantity and quality of the water available at the mine. An 
amount of $200,000 has been provided to insure there are no 
delays due to funding constraints.
    San Juan Gallup-Navajo water supply study, New Mexico.--The 
Committee has recommended $150,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to complete the feasibility report and initiate 
NEPA compliance activities for the San Juan Gallup-Navajo water 
supply study in New Mexico.
    Upper Rio Grande water operations model study, New 
Mexico.--The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to use 
available funds to continue the Upper Rio Grande water 
operations model study at the current year level of funding of 
$400,000.
    Upper Rio Grande Basin Water Management and Technical 
Assistance Program, New Mexico.--The Committee has provided an 
increase of $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
initiate and complete a confirmatory well drilling program 
which is part of a preliminary Taos Indian Water Rights 
Settlement Agreement. The Committee expects the Bureau to 
expedite this work and to keep the Committee informed of its 
progress.
    Laughlin Lagoon, NV.--The Committee recommendation includes 
sufficient funding for the Bureau of Reclamation to clean up 
and dredge the Laughlin Lagoon along the Colorado River in 
Nevada. The Committee has been informed that the Bureau of 
Reclamation has acknowledged its obligation to maintain and 
correct deficiencies caused by work previously undertaken by 
the Bureau. The Committee expects the Bureau to move 
expeditiously to accomplish the planned cleanup and dredging 
activities.
    Klamath project, Oregon.--The Committee has provided the 
full amount requested in the budget for the Klamath project in 
Oregon and supports the program as described in the Bureau of 
Reclamation's budget justification.
    Dakota water management and technical assistance, South 
Dakota.--The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$250,000, an increase of $125,000, for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to continue the Black Hill, SD, water management 
study.
    Lake Andes-Wagner project, South Dakota.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $150,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation 
to undertake an environmental impact statement [EIS] for the 
Lake Andes-Wagner project in South Dakota. The EIS is needed to 
determine the feasibility of possible future project 
construction.
    Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Program.--In reviewing 
the out-year costs for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 
Center, the Committee is concerned with the potential expansion 
of the program and program costs. It appears that the scope of 
work is expanding beyond that authorized by the Grand Canyon 
Protection Act and prescribed by the environmental impact 
statement and record of decision. The Committee directs the 
Department to remain at budget levels for fiscal years 1998-99 
for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.
    Endangered species recovery implementation.--The Committee 
has provided $1,000,000, an increase of $541,000, for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to undertake additional endangered 
species implementation activities in the San Juan River basin.
    Reclamation recreation management--title XXVIII.--An 
additional $2,700,000 is included to allow the Bureau of 
Reclamation to participate in a meaningful way in a cost-shared 
program with the State of New Mexico in recreation facility 
improvements under title XXVIII of the Reclamation Projects 
Authorization and Adjustments Act, Public Law 102-575. The 
Committee is informed that the State has been financing these 
projects unilaterally and that an imbalance has existed in the 
allocation of funding through this program. The recommended 
funding will help correct this situation.
    Competing water demands evaluation.--The Committee is 
informed by the authorizing committee that the Bureau of 
Reclamation plans to complete evaluations of current practices 
on at least one project in each of its 26 area offices, with 
the goal of finding ways to more effectively manage competing 
demands for water and of their concerns in this regard. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that none of the funds 
provided herein or made available in prior years be used for 
such evaluation until specifically authorized by Congress.

               California bay-delta ecosystem restoration

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $85,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     143,300,000
Committee recommendation................................      65,000,000

    An appropriation of $65,000,000 is recommended for the 
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration [CALFED] Program.
    The CALFED Program was established in May 1995 for the 
purpose of developing a comprehensive, long-term solution to 
the complex and interrelated problems in the San Francisco Bay-
Delta area of California. The program's focus is on the health 
of the ecosystem and improving water management. In addition, 
this program addresses the issues of uncertain water supplies, 
aging levees, and threatened water quality.
    The fiscal year budget proposes funding of $143,300,000, an 
increase of $58,300,000 over the amount appropriated for fiscal 
year 1998. While the Committee is unable to provide the full 
budget request due to severe budget constraints, much progress 
has been made over the past year to establish a strong project 
selection process. While CALFED is an important initiative, it 
must compete with other important programs during a time of 
reduced budget allocations and constraints. The Committee 
believes that the long-term success of the program is not 
dependent so much upon the level of funding as it does on the 
quality of the projects selected, and performance and ecosystem 
health monitoring measures to gauge the effectiveness of 
completed activities and projects. As stated last year, it will 
take time for the program to mature. The allocation of the 
current year appropriation was completed only recently, and 
construction or implementation work on most projects is just 
beginning. Further, financial and accounting systems essential 
to proper funds management are not fully in place.
    The Committee, therefore, believes that a substantial 
expansion of the program at this time could adversely impact 
the program's overall success and the proper use of the 
resources committed to the program.
    In providing this funding, the Committee understands and 
anticipates that the ecosystem roundtable's revised priority 
setting and coordinated funding allocation process will be in 
place and underway as part of the timely allocation and 
distribution process. The Committee also expects to see 
significant steps toward improved program coordination and 
integration reflected in each quarterly report to congress, 
including, but not limited to key elements of the CALFED and 
CVPIA program.
    The Committee continues to be concerned that the CALFED, 
CVPIA, and related activities under the Central Valley project 
work in water and related resources duplicate and overlap each 
other. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the 
Interior are to explore ways to consolidate this work into a 
single program in order to more clearly and simple display to 
total effort on ecosystem restoration activities.

               bureau of reclamation loan program account

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $10,425,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      12,425,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,425,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,425,000, 
the same as the budget request, for the small reclamation 
program of the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422l), loans and/or grants can be made to non-Federal 
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment 
of small water resource projects.
    As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this 
account records the subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans, as well as administrative expenses of this program.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

                                                           BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--LOAN PROGRAM                                                          
                                                                  [Amounts in dollars]                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Budget estimate                Committee recommendation     
                                                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Total Federal     Allocated to                          Facility                            Facility    
                Project title                       cost              date            Resource         operations,        Resource         operations,  
                                                                                   management and   maintenance, and   management and   maintenance, and
                                                                                     development     rehabilitation      development     rehabilitation 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                 CALIFORNIA                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
CASTROVILLE IRRIGATION WATER................        15,379,000         6,666,356         2,600,000  ................         2,600,000  ................
CHINO BASIN RESALINATION....................        10,300,000         8,018,000         2,114,000  ................         2,114,000  ................
SALINAS VALLEY..............................         9,876,000         4,800,000         1,700,000  ................         1,700,000  ................
SAN SEVAINE PROJECT.........................        28,100,000           976,000           781,000  ................           781,000  ................
TEMESCAL VALLEY PROJECT.....................         6,541,000         3,351,000           801,000  ................           801,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                   OREGON                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
MILLTOWN HILL, DOUGLAS COUNTY...............        18,624,000         3,355,000         4,004,000  ................         4,004,000  ................
                                                                                                                                                        
                   VARIOUS                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
LOAN ADMINISTRATION.........................  ................  ................           425,000  ................           425,000  ................
                                             ===========================================================================================================
      TOTAL, LOAN PROGRAM...................  ................  ................        12,425,000  ................        12,425,000  ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                central valley project restoration fund

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $33,130,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      49,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,500,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,500,000 
for the Central Valley project restoration fund. Budget 
constraints have required the Committee to limit the activities 
to be funded through the Central Valley project restoration 
funds for fiscal year 1999. However, the amount recommended 
represents an increase of $6,000,000 over the current year 
level.
    The Central Valley project restoration fund was authorized 
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of 
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide 
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, 
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife 
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of 
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project 
beneficiaries and from donations. 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.

                   policy and administrative expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $47,558,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      48,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      48,000,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $48,000,000. This is the same as the budget 
request.
    The general 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, CO, 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.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Title III provides for the Department of Energy's defense 
and nondefense functions, the power marketing administrations, 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    In the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, the Congress reorganized the Department of 
Energy's nondefense energy and science research programs to 
delineate the two areas of research. For fiscal year 1999, the 
Committee recommends two adjustments to the structure enacted 
last year. First, the magnetic fusion energy program is moved 
from energy research to science. Second, the Committee proposes 
a general provision to rename the Office of Energy Research; 
which, contrary to the implications of its name, does not 
manage the Department's energy research but rather its science 
programs, to the Office of Science Research. Consequently, the 
title of the Office's director becomes the Director of Science 
Research.

                  inappropriate use of appropriations

    The Committee has learned that funds made available to the 
Department of Energy by previous appropriations acts have been 
used to, among other things: pay for members of industry 
associations and associated entities to attend national and 
international conferences, publish magazines, purchase 
association membership information, conduct surveys of 
association membership, place op-ed style articles in 
publications, write talking points in support of the 
Department's programs, and underwrite industry conferences.
    The Committee has not included a statutory prohibition on 
these activities because the activities themselves are not at 
issue; there may be legitimate reasons for employees of the 
Department of Energy or its management and operating 
contractors to undertake the activities listed above. However, 
a distinction needs to be drawn between employees of the 
Department of Energy or its management and operating 
contractors who act on behalf of the Government and other 
contractors whose predominant responsibility is not to the 
Government. The Department and its management and operating 
contractors should not contract with any other entity for the 
performance of these or similar responsibilities, and, as a 
general rule, appropriated funds should not be used, directly 
or indirectly, to underwrite the expenses of industry 
associations or associated entities.

                         energy supply programs

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $906,807,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,129,042,000
Committee recommendation................................     699,836,000

                       solar and renewable energy

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $346,266,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     437,156,000
Committee recommendation................................     345,479,000

    This is the first Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act considered by the Committee following the 
signing of the Kyoto Global Climate Change Accord.
    The Committee is reluctant and unable to draw conclusions 
regarding the existence, extent, or affects of global climate 
change. However, in the face of uncertainty regarding global 
climate change and the human health effects of atmospheric 
pollution, prudence merits consideration be given to energy 
production technologies that reduce the emission of pollutants 
that accumulate in the atmosphere.
    In that regard, the Committee considers the 
administration's use of base-year metrics, that is: the 
recommendation that the United States reduce its emissions of 
certain pollutants to 1990 levels, to be an inappropriate 
metric. The Committee recommends that the accumulation of 
pollutants in the atmosphere be considered in terms of their 
historical concentrations; not their annual production rates 
since it is the concentration levels not the rate of 
accumulation which are alleged to have global climate change 
implications.
    When considered in those terms, the commitments made in 
Kyoto will have a negligible effect on the concentration of 
CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere. If 
prudence merits the development of new energy production 
technologies, it also requires a recognition that existing 
technology does not provide a means to meet increasing global 
energy requirements while stabilizing the production of 
atmospheric pollutants and certainly does not provide a means 
to reduce atmospheric pollution concentrations.
    The Committee has modified the request for low emission 
energy technologies; including solar and renewable and nuclear, 
with the view toward post 2010 application of new technologies. 
As a result, with few exceptions, the Committee recommends 
basic research that will provide significant improvements over 
existing technologies rather than on the deployment or 
incremental improvement of commercial or near commercial 
technologies. The Committee is well aware of the proposition 
that appropriated funds can demonstrate the reliable operation 
of low emission technologies before they become commercially 
attractive. In a few cases, the Committee has provided funds 
for just such demonstrations. However, in general, the 
Committee expects non-Federal financing to support the final 
stages of product development and all stages of market 
development.
    The Committee is aware that State and local governments as 
well as private companies interested in pursuing grants through 
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, have been 
hampered by a lack of comprehensive grant information, and the 
Department's inability to fund projects which involve multiple 
renewable or energy efficiency technologies. These limitations 
are preventing worthy projects from receiving Federal 
assistance. To address this problem, the Committee urges DOE, 
in preparing its fiscal year 2000 budget, to consider and 
propose ways of integrating energy efficiency and renewable 
programs to facilitate assistance for cross-sector technologies 
and practices.
    Solar building technology research.--The Committee 
recommends $3,600,000 for solar building technology research. 
For space conditioning and water heating, the Committee 
provides $100,000 instead of the requested $500,000 and directs 
that the funds provided be used to improve computer models that 
predict the reliability of solar systems made of new materials. 
The Committee recommendation does not provide funds for 
precompetitive field validation.
    Photovoltaic energy systems.--The Committee recommends 
$57,110,000 for photovoltaic energy systems which includes 
$2,000,000 to support the ongoing research in photovoltaics 
conducted by the Southeast and Southwest regional photovoltaic 
experiment stations. Within that amount, the Committee has 
provided $4,921,000 for basic research/university programs. 
Within advanced materials and devices, the Committee 
recommendation includes $15,289,000 for thin-film partnerships. 
Within collector research and systems development, the 
Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 for manufacturing 
research and development.
    Solar thermal energy systems.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $17,100,000 for solar thermal energy systems. Within 
this amount, $1,000,000 is provided for the dish/engine field 
verification initiative, $1,000,000 is provided for the solmat 
initiative, and no funds are provided for systems and markets/
industrial assistance.
    Biofuels.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$59,013,000 for biofuels energy systems. The Committee 
recommends that the funds provided be allocated in the 
following manner: within the ``Biopower systems'' account: 
$1,500,000 for thermochemical conversion, $10,000,000 for rural 
development, $2,300,000 for biomass/coal cofiring field 
validation, $4,000,000 for modular systems development, 
$1,000,000 for black-liquor gasification demonstration, and 
$2,500,000 for biomass for energy; within the ``Transportation 
biofuels'' account: $2,000,000 for advanced fermentation 
research and development, $2,500,000 for advanced cellulose 
research and development, $2,808,000 for pretreatment research 
and development, $1,000,000 for the plant biotechnology 
consortium, $8,690,000 for integrated process development, 
$9,065,000 for production facilities development, $550,000 for 
biodiesel production, $4,600,000 for feedstock production, and 
$2,500,000 for the regional biomass program.
    The Vermont Department of Public Service in cooperation 
with the Vermont Department of Agriculture and Agency for 
Natural Resources has proposed to initiate an energy 
demonstration project designed to demonstrate to the 
agricultural community both the physical and economic 
feasibility of capturing and utilizing methane from 
agricultural waste products for combined heat and power 
production on the farm. The Committee recommendation for 
biopower systems includes $695,000 for the Vermont methane 
energy production proposal.
    The Committee recommendation includes $250,000 to evaluate 
the amount, distribution, and best method of extraction and 
utilization of methane gas from the Sunrise Mountain Landfill 
in Nevada.
    The Committee is also aware of proposals to use switchgrass 
that is beneficial to control soil erosion as a fuel for 
electric generation, is supportive and recommends that the 
Department enter into cost-sharing partnerships to demonstrate 
these technologies if the non-Federal partners provide the 
required cost sharing.
    The Committee is aware of a biopower initiative at the 
Energy and Environmental Research Center [EERC]. The Committee 
recognizes the unique capabilities of the EERC to conduct 
laboratory and pilot plant research to evaluate and adapt 
existing technologies for cofiring, as well as to develop 
advanced technologies for combustion, gasification, and hot-gas 
cleaning, and encourages the Department to evaluate the 
biopower initiative and conduct cooperative work in this area 
with the EERC.
    Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $33,200,000 
for wind energy systems. Within turbine research, $2,000,000 is 
provided for near-term research and testing, $5,000,000 for the 
next generation turbine project, $1,000,0000 for the small wind 
project, and $4,000,000 for supporting research, testing, and 
management. Within cooperative research and testing, a total of 
$3,000,000 is provided for industry support and utility 
analysis. The full amount of the request is provided for 
certification and standards development.
    Renewable energy production incentive program.--The 
Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000 for the renewable 
energy production incentives program.
    Solar program support.--The Committee strongly endorses the 
Department's efforts to provide technical analysis and 
assistance to Federal and State policymakers considering the 
role of renewable energy technologies in a deregulated 
electricity market. The Committee has provided the full amount 
of the request, $4,000,000, for that effort. The Committee 
supports aspects of the proposed 5-year open competition 
solicitation for renewable energy technologies in particular 
the proposed evaluation criteria; carbon and other pollution 
reduction, verification, and validation of technologies, 
replicability, and export potential. However, due to budget 
pressure, the Committee is unable to provide the requested 
$10,000,000 for this proposed new initiative.
    International solar energy.--The Committee supports the 
U.S. industry joint implementation agreement which received the 
totality of funds provided within international solar energy 
programs in the current year. The Committee supports the 
increased budget request of $3,400,000 for USIJI and provides 
the full amount of the request.
    The Committee has not provided funds for two proposed new 
initiatives; CORECT and the America's 21st century program.
    Geothermal.--The Committee recommends a total of 
$18,000,000 for geothermal technology development. Within that 
amount, $9,000,000 is recommended for exploration and 
production technology, $8,000,000 for drilling technology, and 
$1,000,000 for geothermal heat pump deployment.
    Hydrogen research.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$29,000,000 for the hydrogen research program, a $12,750,000 
increase over the current year. The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,500,000 for the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Power and 
Refueling Station project in Nevada, and $250,000 for the 
gasification of switchgrass and its use in fuel cells.
    The Committee understands that Billings, MT, stands in a 
rich resource area for the materials necessary for solid waste 
fuel cells. The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for 
the Montana Trade Port Authority in Billings, MT, to complete a 
resource assessment and feasibility study on construction of a 
solid waste hydrogen fuel cell manufacturing facility in the 
community.
    Renewable Indian energy resources.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000, the same amount as provided 
in the current year, for the renewable Indian energy resources 
program.
    Transmission reliability.--The Committee is concerned that 
the transition to a deregulated, competitive electricity market 
not be accompanied by a decrease in transmission system 
reliability. To that end, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 
to support a national laboratory-utility industry partnership 
to coordinate and integrate research and technology development 
to address critical concerns related to the reliability of the 
emerging electricity market.
    Electric energy systems and storage.--The Committee 
strongly supports the goals of the electric energy systems and 
storage program. Due to budget pressures, the Committee 
recommends a $1,000,000 reduction from the $32,000,000 
requested for high temperature superconducting research and 
development.
    Remote power.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$3,000,000 for the remote power initiative to continue the 
demonstration of fuel cell technology and other clean power 
alternatives in remote, cold weather climates, and directs the 
Department utilize criteria for cost effectiveness of energy 
savings over a 25-year life cycle.
    Carbon sequestration.--A variety of programs within the 
Department of Energy investigate the potential of carbon 
sequestration to reduce the release of carbon and other 
pollutants into the atmosphere. There is some concern, 
especially regarding deep ocean sequestration, that such a 
program would substitute one environmental problem for another. 
As the Department continues its work in this regard, special 
attention should be given to the concerns of coastal and island 
communities that are economically dependent upon the oceans.
    Accelerated technology demonstration.--The Committee 
recommendation for solar and renewable energy includes 
$3,000,000 for the accelerated demonstration of federally 
sponsored research for renewable energy production and 
environmental remediation project at the Michigan Biotechnology 
Institute.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$15,651,000, the same amount as provided in the current year, 
for solar and renewable energy program direction.

                        nuclear energy programs

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $243,060,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     325,750,000
Committee recommendation................................     280,662,000

    Nuclear fission currently provides 20 percent of domestic 
electricity production and emits no atmospheric pollutants. The 
United States has not yet determined how it will dispose of 
spent nuclear fuel, and the Committee does not underestimate 
the technical and social challenges entailed in the disposal of 
spent nuclear fuel. However, unlike the emissions of coal, gas, 
and fuel oil plants, the byproducts of fission can be 
contained. Until even more advanced, base-load energy 
technologies are developed, nuclear fission provides the best 
credible means of reducing the concentration of atmospheric 
pollutants in the foreseeable future. For that reason, the 
Committee strongly supports the nuclear technology research and 
development program, the nuclear energy research initiative, 
and the nuclear energy plant optimization program.
    Fast flux test facility.--The Committee is aware of the 
potential uses of the fast flux test facility [FFTF]. Without 
prejudice, the Committee has provided funding to keep the FFTF 
in hot standby until a decision is made on tritium production 
from within the ``Nondefense environmental restoration'' 
account from which the FFTF was funded until the decision was 
made to delay its decommissioning.
    Isotopes.--The Committee recommends that the Department 
establish an advisory committee to review the need for, 
capability to, and proposals regarding the production of 
isotopes for medical, research, and other purposes. The 
Committee is aware of a number of broad analyses of these 
issues by organizations such as the Institute of Medicine and 
specific proposals involving Department as well as university-
owned reactors. Given the breadth of interest in the production 
of isotopes, the Committee recommends that the advisory 
committee include representatives of industry, universities, 
and other Federal agencies.

                    environment, safety, and health

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $66,050,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      76,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      56,000,000

    The Committee recommends the full amount of the request for 
environment, safety, and health program direction. However, the 
Committee recommends that of the amount requested, an 
additional $20,000,000 be borne within the defense function.

                       energy support activities

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $105,100,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     126,881,000
Committee recommendation................................     115,600,000

    Technical information management.--The Committee 
recommendation for the technical information management program 
is $1,600,000, the same amount as provided in the current year. 
The Committee recommends $6,500,000 for program management 
within this account.
    Field offices and management.--The Committee recommendation 
for field offices and management is $95,000,000, the same as 
the current year.

                        environmental management

                              (nondefense)

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $497,059,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     462,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     456,700,000

    Fast flux test facility.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $32,100,000 within the ``Nondefense environmental 
management'' account to provide for the continued hot standby 
of the fast flux test facility [FFTF]. The Department will 
decide whether to restart or decommission and decontaminate the 
FFTF in the coming year.
    No matter what direction the Department determines for the 
facility, the Committee fully expects the Department to request 
additional funds from Congress to support that decision to 
minimize job layoffs.
    Science and technology.--All funds provided for 
environmental management technology development are provided 
within defense environmental management.
    Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Act.--The Department is 
nearing the completion of its uranium mill tailings work 
managed by the Grand Junction Project Office. It has been 
brought to the attention of the Committee that the Department's 
current plans do not call for the remediation of the project 
office site itself. Within 120 days of enactment of this act, 
the Department should report to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the requirements, both legal and 
environmental, to remediate the project office site.
    Brookhaven National Laboratory.--The Committee considers 
the remediation of soil and water contamination at the 
Brookhaven National Laboratory to be of the highest priority. 
Consequently, $30,000,000, an increase of $5,700,000 over the 
amount of the request, is provided to accelerate that work.
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP].--
The Committee is concerned that the Department of Energy has 
not reached agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on 
the transfer of cleanup responsibilities under FUSRAP and, 
therefore, has included clarifying language in the bill. The 
Committee directs the Department to fulfill its 
responsibilities at FUSRAP sites exclusive of the remedial 
actions which is to be performed by the Corps of Engineers. The 
Department will use funds appropriated under this account and 
the departmental administration accounts in fulfilling such 
responsibilities.
    Prior-year balances.--The Committee recommends the use of 
$10,000,000 of prior-year balances derived from funds 
previously provided for nondefense environmental restoration 
and nuclear materials and facilities stabilization.

      uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $220,200,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     277,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     200,000,000

    The uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning 
fund was established in accordance with title XI of Public Law 
102-486, the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. The funds 
provided for the environmental cleanup of the Department's 
uranium enrichment plants, two of which are currently leased to 
the USEC, and the cleanup of uranium mill tailings and thorium 
piles resulting from production and sales to the Federal 
Government for the Manhattan project and other national 
security purposes.
    Due to budget constraints, the Committee recommendation 
includes a reduction of $77,000,000 from the budget request of 
$277,000,000.
    The Committee is aware that the Secretary of Energy has 
failed to implement section 511 of the energy and water 
appropriations conference report for fiscal year 1998 regarding 
restoration of the arming and arrest authority at the Paducah 
and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. In accordance with 
testimony by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Committee 
agrees that the Secretary of Energy is responsible for 
implementation of these guidelines affecting arming and arrest 
authority under section 161k of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
(42 U.S.C. 2201k). The Committee also expects that the 
Secretary will define adequate security guards carrying 
sidearms as all security guards employed at both Paducah and 
Portsmouth plants. The Committee concurs with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and directs the Secretary to implement 
section 511 immediately.

                           nuclear waste fund

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $160,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     190,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     190,000,000

    The Committee has provided $4,875,000 for the State of 
Nevada and $5,540,000 for affected local governments in 
accordance with statutory restrictions contained in the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act.
    Data repository.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for the University of Nevada Las Vegas to manage 
data from scientific studies of Yucca Mountain.
    Cannister aging and corrosion.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management to study cannister aging and 
corrosion to further the understanding of the interaction of 
nuclear waste with cannisters and the effects of aging and 
corrosion on waste sequestration.

                                science

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $2,235,708,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   2,482,460,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,669,560,000

    The Committee has completed its consolidation of the 
Department's science accounts by moving fusion energy sciences 
from the ``Energy supply'' account to the ``Science'' account.

                          high energy physics

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $680,035,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     691,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     691,000,000

    The Committee has provided the full amount of the request 
for high energy physics.

                            nuclear physics

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $320,925,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     332,600,000
Committee recommendation................................     332,600,000

    The Committee has provided the full amount of the request 
for nuclear physics.

                 biological and environmental research

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $406,710,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     392,600,000
Committee recommendation................................     407,600,000

    Low Dose Effects Program.--The Committee has provided 
$20,000,000 for the Low Dose Effects Program. The Department is 
to develop a program with the goal to determine the biological 
effects of exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation by 2008. 
Within 120 days of enactment of this act, the Department is to 
submit to the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate 
a plan and proposed budget for the next 5 years of this effort.
    The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to begin 
planning for the marine mammal research and education center to 
be located at the Natural Energy Laboratory on the Island of 
Hawaii. The Committee is aware of the State of Hawaii's intent 
to contribute $1,900,000 for this project.

                         basic energy sciences

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $668,240,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     836,100,000
Committee recommendation................................     836,100,000

    Spallation neutron source.--Despite significant budget 
pressures, the Committee recommends the full amount of the 
request for construction of the spallation neutron source. The 
Department of Energy's construction and operation of scientific 
user facilities sets it apart from any other Federal agency. 
The Committee encourages the Department's continued success in 
this regard, and will make every effort to provide the optimum 
annual funding to complete construction on schedule.
    The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to 
continue the Department's Experimental Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research [EPSCoR] Program.

                     other energy research programs

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $173,667,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     182,900,000
Committee recommendation................................     172,260,000

    Computational and technology research.--Due to budget 
pressure, the Committee recommends $150,000,000 for 
computational and technology research, a reduction of 
$10,640,000 from the request.

                         fusion energy sciences

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $232,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     228,160,000
Committee recommendation................................     232,000,000

    The Committee has previously complemented the review and 
coordination provided to the magnetic fusion program by the 
Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Board and its predecessor; the 
Fusion Energy Advisory Board. The Committee is aware of efforts 
within the domestic and international fusion community to 
redirect the program in light of the demise of the proposed 
$11,000,000,000 international thermonuclear experimental 
reactor [ITER]; an inevitable decision given current and 
anticipated budgets. Three options are under consideration: a 
single machine strategy based on a more affordable ITER 
concept; a multiple machine strategy that would pursue 
parallel, phased, or sequential steps; and the possibility of 
deferring any decision about the next magnetic fusion 
facilities.
    The Committee recommends that the Department, prior to 
committing to any future magnetic fusion program or facilities, 
conduct a broader review to determine which fusion technology 
or technologies the United States should pursue to achieve 
ignition and/or a fusion energy device.
    The Department currently funds four fusion related 
technologies; pulsed-power, lasers, ion drivers, and magnetic 
fusion. The Department has been reluctant or unable to review 
those technologies as a group because they have different near-
term objectives and are managed by different program offices. 
Regardless of these near-term and management differences, the 
Committee is aware that scientists within each program have an 
eye toward ignition and energy applications.
    The Committee is well aware of the challenges entailed by a 
review of multiple programs with multiple and possibly 
competing technologies. However, the Department should conduct 
an encompassing review of all four technologies prior to making 
decisions about next steps toward fusion energy, specifically 
to consider nonmagnetic alternatives. At the very least, the 
review should develop a roadmap that justifies the continued 
development of each technology.
    The Committee is aware of a number of proposals for the 
decontamination and decommissioning of the Tokamak fusion test 
reactor [TFTR], the most expeditious of which could save the 
Department 3 years and $25,000,000. In the Committee's view, 
this represents a clear opportunity for the Department to prove 
its ability to decontaminate and decommission a facility in a 
timely and efficient manner. The Department should report to 
the Committee within 180 days on the schedule and budget for 
the decommissioning and decontamination of the TFTR.

                    University and science education

    The Committee recognizes the Department's unique ability to 
contribute to the preparation of the Nation's next generation 
of scientists and engineers. The Committee regrets that budget 
constraints preclude providing the $15,000,000 requested for 
university and science education. The Committee endorses the 
Department's ongoing education initiatives funded through 
program accounts. While a line-item appropriation is not 
provided, the Committee encourages the Department to seek 
opportunities to continue to support work such as that 
performed by the Science and Technology Alliance.

                      departmental administration

                                (gross)

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $224,155,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     245,788,000
Committee recommendation................................     238,539,000

                        (miscellaneous revenues)

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $136,738,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     136,530,000
Committee recommendation................................     136,530,000

                           inspector general

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $27,500,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      29,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,500,000

    The Committee has provided $27,500,000, $2,000,000 less 
than the request, for the Office of the Inspector General.

                         recommendation summary

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

    The atomic energy defense activities programs of the 
Department of Energy are divided into separate appropriation 
accounts as follows: weapons activities; defense environmental 
restoration and waste management; defense facilities closure 
projects; defense environmental management privitization; other 
defense programs; and defense nuclear waste disposal. 
Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below.

                           Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $4,146,692,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   4,500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,445,700,000

    Weapons activities support the Nation's national security 
mission of nuclear deterrence by preserving nuclear weapons 
technology and competence in the laboratories and maintaining 
the reliability and safety of the weapons in the enduring 
nuclear stockpile. The United States continues to retain 
strategic nuclear forces sufficient to deter future hostile 
countries from seeking a nuclear advantage. In the past, 
confidence in the nuclear weapons stockpile was assured through 
a combination of underground nuclear and laboratory testing. 
Since October 1992 the United States has maintained a 
moratorium on underground nuclear testing and has explored 
other means to assure confidence in the safety, reliability, 
and performance of nuclear weapons.
    The mission of defense programs is to maintain the safety, 
security, and reliability of the Nation's enduring nuclear 
weapons stockpile within the constraints of a comprehensive 
test ban, utilizing a science-based approach to stockpile 
stewardship and management in a smaller, more efficient weapons 
complex infrastructure. The future weapons complex will rely on 
scientific understanding and expert judgment, rather than on 
underground nuclear testing and the development of new weapons, 
to predict, identify, and correct problems affecting the safety 
and reliability of the stockpile. Enhanced experimental 
capabilities and new tools in computation, surveillance, and 
advanced manufacturing will become necessary to certify weapon 
safety, performance, and reliability without underground 
nuclear testing. Weapons will be maintained, modified, or 
retired and dismantled as needed to meet arms control 
objectives or remediate potential safety and reliability 
issues. As new tools are developed and validated, they will be 
incorporated into a smaller, more flexible and agile weapons 
complex infrastructure for the future.
    The Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program is a 
single, highly integrated technical program for maintaining the 
safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile in an era 
without underground nuclear testing and without new nuclear 
weapons development and production. Traditionally, the 
activities of the three weapons laboratories and the Nevada 
test site have been regarded separately from those of the 
weapons production plants. However, although there remain 
separate budget items within defense programs, all stockpile 
stewardship and management activities have achieved a new, 
closer linkage to each other.
    There are three primary goals of the Stockpile Stewardship 
and Management Program: (1) provide high confidence in the 
safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. stockpile to 
ensure the continuing effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear 
deterrent while simultaneously supporting U.S. arms control and 
nonproliferation policy; (2) provide a small, affordable, and 
effective production complex to provide component and weapon 
replacements when needed, including limited lifetime components 
and tritium; and (3) provide the ability to reconstitute U.S. 
nuclear testing and weapon production capacities, consistent 
with Presidential directives and the ``Nuclear Posture 
Review,'' should national security so demand in the future.
    The policy framework which guides the Department of 
Energy's stockpile stewardship and management activities is the 
``Nuclear Posture Review'' which is approved by the President. 
The requirements for DOE stated in terms of infrastructure to 
support U.S. nuclear forces are: (1) maintain nuclear weapons 
capability (without underground nuclear testing); (2) 
demonstrate the capability to design, fabricate, and certify 
weapon types in the enduring stockpile; (3) maintain the 
capability to design, fabricate, and certify new warheads; and 
(4) ensure tritium availability. In addition, the President has 
also requested a new annual certification process to certify 
that the stockpile is safe and reliable in the absence of 
underground nuclear testing, and to produce a statement about 
the future confidence in the safety and reliability of the 
stockpile.
    The Committee has serious concerns that projected budget 
profiles for Defense missions of the Nation are insufficient to 
sustain the important stockpile stewardship and management 
initiatives of DOE. The Committee believes that the issue of 
sufficient resources for the Department of Energy to ensure the 
certification of the weapons stockpile safety and reliability 
is of such importance it requires the ongoing attention of the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. With 
programs constrained by budget ceilings, aggressive management 
at all levels is mandatory. The Committee is aware of instances 
at DOE laboratories where projects have not been well defined 
and there has been a lack of management attention. This 
situation has resulted in scope creep, extended project 
completion schedules, and cost growth far in excess of what is 
acceptable. If the capability of the national laboratories to 
provide the certification, required by the President, is to be 
maintained under a severely restricted budget environment, it 
is mandatory that DOE and the national laboratories take 
whatever steps are necessary to assure the proper focus. It is 
essential that critical, centerpiece missions not be impacted 
because of poor management attention.
    The Committee's recommendation for weapons activities is 
$4,445,700,000, an decrease of $54,300,000 below the budget 
request for fiscal year 1999. Details of the recommended 
funding levels follow.

                         stockpile stewardship

    An appropriation of $2,163,375,000 is recommended for the 
stockpile stewardship activities of the Department of Energy.
    The stockpile stewardship program addresses issues of 
maintaining confidence in weapons stockpile safety and 
reliability without underground nuclear testing through a 
technically challenging science-based stockpile stewardship 
program utilizing upgraded or new experimental and 
computational capabilities.
    The Committee continues to view laboratory directed 
research and development [LDRD] as an integral, essential 
component of the Department's ability to respond to changing 
needs and requirements, and maintaining the preeminence of the 
national laboratories in the areas of science and engineering. 
The Committee directs DOE to continue current guidelines for 
managing laboratory directed research and development.
    Core stockpile stewardship.--The Core Stockpile Stewardship 
Program provides the physical, technical, and intellectual 
infrastructure necessary to support a reliable, safe, and 
secure nuclear weapons stockpile. The Committee has recommended 
a total of $1,596,375,000 for core stockpile stewardship 
programs. This is $25,000,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee is concerned that the funding level proposed 
for fiscal year 1999 and future budget planning projections of 
the Department of Energy are not sufficient to address the 
critical needs of an aging stockpile. The Committee believes 
that preservation of core intellectual, scientific, and 
technical competencies and the continued ability of the weapons 
complex to respond to changing world situations is critically 
important. Further, the Committee is not convinced that 
engineering and surveillance approaches of yesterday will be 
adequate to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear 
weapons stockpile in the absence of underground testing.
    A decrease of $25,000,000 is recommended for the 
accelerated strategic computing initiative [ASCI]. The ASCI 
program will provide the computing software, computer platforms 
and an operating environment to allow the national laboratories 
to make critical decisions about the safety and reliability of 
the nuclear weapon stockpile without underground nuclear 
testing. The Committee is concerned with the rate of growth of 
the ASCI program when considered in the context of constrained 
DOE defense programs budgets. The Department has embarked on a 
high-risk, aggressive program to significantly upgrade the 
computing capabilities of the weapons labs. This computing 
capability is the glue or common element which ties the entire 
stockpile stewardship and management effort together, thereby 
enable certification of the safety and reliability of the 
nuclear weapons stockpile. However, the ASCI program cannot 
grow at a rate that adversely impacts other essential programs 
and activities, including basic core capabilities. The 
Committee urges the Department to adjust the rate of growth of 
this program to reflect budget realities and the utilization 
history.
    In carrying out its Nevada test site stockpile stewardship 
archiving mission, the Department is encouraged to evaluate and 
utilize, if appropriate, the capabilities of the Nevada Test 
Site Historical Foundation.
    Testing capabilities and readiness.--An appropriation of 
$183,900,000 is recommended for testing capabilities and 
readiness activities. This is the same as the budget request. 
Current Presidential direction is to maintain a readiness 
capability to conduct an underground nuclear test at the Nevada 
test site. Therefore, infrastructure and other measures are to 
be maintained to support this requirement. Presidential 
direction also indicates that resources should be included that 
are necessary to conduct experimental activities planned by the 
nuclear weapons design laboratories and appropriate to the 
national nuclear testing policy.
    While supporting the full amount requested in the budget 
for testing capability and readiness, the Committee is 
concerned that this level of funding may not be sufficient to 
continue some activities undertaken in fiscal year 1998 at an 
effective rate. The Department is urged to limit the impact to 
ongoing activities to the extent practicable.
    The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 from 
within stockpile stewardship for the continued development and 
procurement of a dual-stage gas gun to be located at the Nevada 
test site.
    Construction projects.--An appropriation of $115,543,000 is 
recommended for construction projects under core stockpile 
stewardship activities for fiscal year 1999. The Committee 
recommendation is the same as the budget request.
    Inertial confinement fusion [ICF].--An appropriation of 
$213,800,000 is recommended for the Inertial Confinement Fusion 
Program. The ICF Program continues to be a major contributor to 
the science and technology base supporting the nuclear 
deterrent through improved understanding of the underlying 
physics of nuclear weapons and computational modeling that will 
provide the future basis for ensuring safety, reliability, and 
performance on nuclear components.
    The Committee continues to be impressed with the 
significant scientific advancements being made in pulsed power 
technology at Sandia National Laboratory's Z accelerator. Major 
increases in energy and temperature production enhance 
prospects that pulsed power may contribute in a significant way 
to both weapons and energy applications technology at Sandia 
National Laboratory's Z accelerator. Funds are included to 
support continued work in pulsed power experiments at the Z 
accelerator and to fund initial design studies for a larger 
facility. The Committee understands that this work should help 
DOE and its laboratories reach a conclusion on the technical 
and fiscal feasibility of building a larger scale pulsed power 
facility.
    Stockpile stewardship university alliance.--Within the 
funding available for stockpile stewardship, the Committee 
directs that up to $5,000,000 be used to support stockpile 
stewardship research requirements in accordance with the 
memorandum of agreement executed by the Department and the 
university and community college system of Nevada.
    Project 96-D-111, national ignition facility [NIF].--The 
NIF is a key facility in maintaining nuclear weapons science 
expertise required for the stockpile stewardship program, and 
in supporting weapons effects testing. An appropriation of 
$284,200,000, the full amount needed in fiscal year 1999 to 
keep this important project on schedule, is recommended for the 
NIF project. Fiscal year 1999 is the peak year for construction 
funding, with physical construction being over 60 percent 
complete. The project remains on schedule and within the 
projected construction cost of $1,046,000,000. The Committee is 
pleased with the management and oversight attention provided by 
LLNL on the project.
    Technology transfer and education.--The technology transfer 
and education program directly supports core competencies 
through the development of technologies and intellectual 
capabilities to meet current and future defense mission needs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,000,000 
for these activities for fiscal year 1999 to support ongoing 
cooperative research and development agreements, including 
AMTEX; and education activities.

                          stockpile management

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,980,803,000 
for stockpile management activities. This is $45,000,000 over 
the budget request.
    The stockpile management mission is to provide for 
maintenance, evaluation, dismantlement, transportation, and 
disposal of nuclear weapons in accordance with quality, 
quantity, and schedule requirements approved by the President 
in the nuclear weapons stockpile plan. The program addresses 
issues of near-term and long-range support for the enduring 
stockpile, and for ensuring an adequate supply of tritium. 
Along with routine stockpile surveillance, this includes 
corrective maintenance and system replacement, as well as 
weapon dismantlement. The goal is to support the national 
security of the United States by maintaining a safe and 
reliable nuclear deterrent.
    Of the funds recommended for stockpile management, the 
Committee has provided an increase of $25,000,000 for the 
weapons production plants, including, $5,000,000 to support 
infrastructure and maintenance needs at the Savannah River 
site, $10,000,000 to support advanced manufacturing and other 
capital investment needs at the Kansas City plant, and 
$10,000,000 for the Pantex Plant to support scheduled workload 
requirements, and other technology and infrastructure 
requirements.
    Tritium source.--An appropriation of $177,000,000 is 
recommended for activities related to providing a new tritium 
source. This is $20,000,000 over the amount included in the 
Department's budget request for fiscal year 1999. Tritium is a 
key element used in nuclear weapons which must be replaced 
periodically in order for the weapon to operate as designed. 
Currently, there is no capability to produce tritium and, 
therefore, it is essential that activities related to providing 
a new source of tritium proceed as quickly as possible and as 
requirements dictate. The Committee continues to support the 
dual-track program being developed by the Department.
    The Committee is concerned that the proposed budget for a 
new tritium source is insufficient to support the Department's 
dual track tritium strategy for the accelerator as a back-up 
option if the light-water reactor option is selected as the 
preferred option. Therefore, the Committee has recommended an 
additional $20,000,000 for the APT option for continued design 
activities which will be necessary whether APT is selected as 
the primary option or back-up source.
    Construction projects.--An appropriation of $96,022,000 is 
recommended for line item construction projects under core 
stockpile management for fiscal year 1999. The Committee 
recommendation is $19,300,000 below the budget request.
    Budget constraints preclude the Committee's ability to 
recommend the initiation of certain construction projects and 
reduce funding for others. As such, no funding is included for 
project 99-D-123, replace mechanical utility systems project at 
the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, and project 99-D-125, replace 
boilers and controls, Kansas City plant.
    In addition, the Committee recommendation includes a 
$5,400,000 reduction for project 97-D-172, nuclear materials 
safeguards and security upgrades at Los Alamos; and an 
$11,000,000 reduction for project 95-D-102, chemistry and 
metallurgy research facility upgrades project at Los Alamos. 
Both projects have experienced significant schedule delays, 
changed requirements and cost increases, and the Committee is 
concerned that the lab has not given serious attention to 
design requirements, project management and cost control 
issues. The reductions will allow the DOE and the lab to 
resolve and firmly establish cost and schedule baselines so the 
projects can proceed without further significant delays. In the 
case of the nuclear materials safeguards facility, the 
Department is to move expeditiously to reevaluate the mission 
needs in light of the design deficiencies and to inform the 
appropriate congressional committees promptly once it's 
decision is final.

                           program direction

    An appropriation of $255,500,000 is recommended for program 
direction activities. This is a reduction of $5,000,000 below 
the budget request. The reduction reflects the belief that 
further savings can be achieved through efficiencies from 
realignment efforts proposed in the Institute for Defense 
Analysis report on the Department's management structure of 
weapon activities. The Committee supports the action taken by 
the Senate authorizing committee in making atomic energy 
weapons activities funding available for payment by the 
Secretary of Energy to the educational foundation chartered to 
enhance educational activities in the vicinity of Los Alamos 
National Laboratory, NM.
    The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the 
Los Alamos schools and $3,000,000 for the Los Alamos 
Educational Foundation.
    Use of prior year balances.--A $50,000,000 reduction in 
prior year carryover balances is recommended by the Committee. 
The Committee notes that there are differences between the 
Department and GAO regarding the level of available balances, 
but believes that a reduction is warranted and can be made 
without adverse impacts on critical weapon activity 
requirements.

                        recommendation summaries

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $4,379,438,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   4,259,903,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,293,403,000

    The Department's environmental management program is 
responsible for identifying and reducing health and safety 
risks, and managing waste at sites where the Department carried 
out nuclear energy or weapons research and production 
activities which resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed 
waste contamination. The environmental management program goals 
are to eliminate and manage the urgent risk in the system; 
emphasize health and safety for workers and the public; 
establish a system that increases managerial and financial 
control; and establish a stronger partnership between DOE and 
its stakeholders. The ``Defense environmental restoration and 
waste management'' appropriation is organized into two program 
accounts, site/project completion and post-2006 completion to 
reflect the emphasis on project completion and site closures.
    The fiscal year 1999 budget request marks the first fiscal 
year that the environmental management program structure is 
aligned with DOE's 2006 plan. All activities have been 
organized into projects, which have more defined scopes, 
schedules, and costs that support a defined end state at each 
specific site. In addition, the environmental management budget 
is organized into program decision units that focus on the end-
date of the project. Those decision units are site closure, 
site/project completion, post-2006 completion; science and 
technology; and program direction.
    The Committee believes that the environmental management 
program of the Department of Energy is beginning to turn the 
corner in the cleanup effort. Leadership within the Department 
has put in place initiatives which have produced greater 
efficiencies, reduced cost growth on many projects, and 
resulted in moving the program from the study phase to the 
cleanup of facilities. The Committee believes that the program 
recommended for fiscal year 1999 is within the acceptable range 
and will meet all legal requirements and other agreements.
    Budget constraints will continue to check future large 
increases and additional efficiencies will be required. 
However, even with these constraints, tremendous progress 
continues to be made both in tangible, on-the-ground results 
and in the business practices within the program. The Committee 
expects the Department to continue to seek every opportunity to 
bring about more efficiencies and tough businesslike approaches 
to program execution. The Department should continue the 
critical review of the need and requirement for each individual 
support service contract, and duplicative and overlapping 
organizational arrangements and functions.
    While it is imperative that the Department's cleanup costs 
be brought down, there are instances where relative small 
amounts of additional funding invested in the near-term offer 
the potential for significant reductions in long-term budgetary 
requirements. The Committee continues to be concerned with 
growing landlord costs required to maintain buildings and 
facilities that are ready for demolition, and the high costs 
associated with temporarily storing and monitoring wastes that 
are ready for permanent disposal. In order to reduce these 
costs in the future, it is important that the Department 
expedite demolition work, waste shipments, and permanent 
storage whenever possible.

                      Site and Project Completion

    An appropriation of $1,047,253,000 is recommended for site/
project completion activities. This is the same as the budget 
request.
    This account will provide funding for projects that will be 
completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or facilities where a 
DOE mission (for example, environmental management, nuclear 
weapons stockpile stewardship, or scientific research) will 
continue beyond 2006. These activities are focused on 
completing projects by 2006 and distinguishes these projects 
from the long-term projects or activities at the sites, such as 
high level waste vitrification or the Department's other 
enduring missions. The largest amount of funding requested is 
for activities at the Hanford, WA, Savannah River, SC, and 
Idaho sites. A significant amount of work is expected to be 
completed at these sites by 2006, although environmental 
management and other stewardship activities will continue 
beyond 2006.

                          Post-2006 Completion

    The Committee recommendation for post-2006 completion 
activities is $2,726,451,000, which includes $2,247,107,000 in 
operating expenses.
    The post-2006 completion request supports projects that are 
projected to continue well beyond 2006. As cleanup is 
completed, it will be necessary for environmental management to 
maintain a presence at most sites to monitor, maintain, and 
provide information on the continued residual contamination. 
These activities are required to ensure the reduction in risk 
to human health is maintained.
    Of the amounts recommended, the Committee has included an 
increase of $5,000,000 for the National Spent Fuel Program to 
address regulatory and repository issues associated with 
Department of Energy owned spent nuclear fuel, and an 
additional $10,000,000 for research and treatment of high level 
waste consistent with the authorized level in the Senate. An 
additional $20,000,000 is recommended to support increased 
operations at the defense waste processing facility's and 
unforeseen requirements related to the in-tank precipitation 
process, and to support infrastructure needs, all consistent 
with authorizing Committee action. The Committee recommendation 
continues support of the HBCU's at the current year level and 
provides the full budget request for F- and H-canyon materials 
processing.
    The Committee is aware that the State of New Mexico is to 
complete WIPP roads ahead of schedule in anticipation of waste 
shipment to the facility. The Committee recommendation, 
therefore, includes $8,000,000 for reimbursement of expenses 
incurred by the State.
    The Committee has included an $10,000,000 for DOE-funded 
studies or other activities associated with the health effects 
of radiation and other hazardous substances on DOE workers and 
communities. The Committee directs that these studies be 
managed by the Office of Environmental, Safety, and Health. 
Additionally, the Committee urges support for the ongoing 
efforts of the Hanford Health Information Network.
    The Committee recommendation includes $5,500,000 from funds 
otherwise available for the Hanford site for the Volpentest 
hazardous materials management and emergency response training 
facility.

   DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT--POST 2006 
                     COMPLETION SAVANNAH RIVER SITE

    The Committee recognizes that universities in South 
Carolina and Georgia have provided valuable technological 
support which has assured environmental, worker and public 
safety at the DOE's Savannah River site [SRS]. The Department 
has named the South Carolina Universities Research and 
Education Foundation [SCUREF], in conjunction with the SRS, as 
the pilot center for waste management and environmental 
restoration. Likewise, the Education Research and Development 
Association [ERDA], a consortium of Georgia universities, has 
worked with SRS in support of health and safety initiatives. 
The Committee recognizes the contributions of SCUREF and ERDA 
and recommends that the Secretary and the SRS continue 
utilizing these institutions for technological support.

                         Science and Technology

    An appropriation of $222,500,000 is recommended for science 
and technology activities related to the environmental waste 
cleanup program.
    The Science and Technology Program provides new or improved 
technologies and research results that reduce risks to workers, 
the public and the environment; reduce cleanup costs; and/or 
provide solutions to environmental problems that currently have 
no solutions. New and improved technologies have the potential 
to reduce environmental restoration and cleanup costs by an 
estimated $12,000,000,000 to $27,000,000,000.
    The Congress has expressed its concerns with the rate at 
which new technology is used in actual cleanup projects. The 
Committee commends the Department's efforts to focus the 
program on completing cleanup and significantly reducing costs. 
However, the Committee is concerned that the existing culture 
and instructional system penalizes the application of 
innovative methods and technologies due to the higher risk. The 
Committee believes that the Department should weigh carefully 
the use of new technologies and approaches where potential cost 
reduction benefits are significant.
    The Committee recommendation transfers to defense 
environmental restoration and waste management those activities 
proposed for funding under the Non-Defense Environmental 
Management Program. Funding for these activities--Technology 
Validation and Verification Center and Western Environmental 
Technology Office, had been included in the ``Defense science 
and technology'' account for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 
1998.
    The Committee finds that the independent review provided 
through the consortium for risk evaluation and stakeholder 
participation to be important in providing balance and 
credibility to work performed for the Department and has 
provided funding to support the program at $5,000,000.
    The Committee recognizes the work carried out by the 
Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory [DIAL] at 
Mississippi State University for the Department of Energy's 
Environmental Management Program. This work has led to the 
development of instrumentation and technology of value to the 
Department's cleanup effort. This includes instrumentation to 
verify the content of plutonium in waste forms, and to ensure 
that waste drums can be handled safely. DIAL has also 
demonstrated technologies to characterize and optimize high 
temperature processes, which has also impacted the commercial 
sector. The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for 
the DIAL.

                           Program Direction

    The Committee recommendation for program direction totals 
$346,199,000, which is the same as the budget request. This 
funding level is essentially the same as the current fiscal 
year and nearly $65,000,000 less than fiscal year 1997.
    Program direction provides the overall direction and 
administrative support for the environmental management 
programs of the Department of Energy. After undergoing 
significant and disruptive downsizing over the last 2 years, 
the Committee believes that stability is now essential if DOE 
is to provide effective oversight and management of the cleanup 
program.
    Asset management.--The Department is encouraged to sell, 
for commercial purposes, its excess amounts of heavy water 
located at its Savannah River facility. Due to continuing 
budget constraints, and to the costs associated with the 
necessary removal of certain substances from the heavy water to 
increase its commercial value, the Department is directed to 
make use of such methods of sale as would allow it, directly or 
indirectly, to use the proceeds of the sale, that will be 
received in the out-years, to offset future costs associated 
with the contract operation of the Savannah River site.
    Funding adjustments.--The Committee has recommended funding 
adjustments totaling $49,000,000 for the Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management Program, including an 
undistributed reduction of $20,000,000 to be offset by the 
availability of uncosted, unobligated prior year funds; and a 
general reduction of $29,000,000.

                              Site Closure

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $890,800,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,006,240,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,048,240,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,048,240,000 
for the site closure program. This is an increase of 
$42,000,000 over the budget request.
    The ``Site closure'' account includes funding for sites 
where the environmental management program has established a 
goal of completing the cleanup mission by the end of fiscal 
year 2006. After the cleanup mission is complete at a site, no 
further DOE mission is envisioned, except for limited long-term 
surveillance and maintenance. This account provides funding to 
cleanup the Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound, Ashtabula, and 
Battelle Columbus sites.
    The Committee continues to believe that a closure fund, 
which targets funding at specific facilities whose accelerated 
closure in the near-term results in significantly reduced out-
year costs, is important in freeing up budgetary resources in 
the longer term. The Committee has included and additional 
$32,000,000 to mitigate the funding shortfall proposed in the 
budget for the Rocky Flats site. The Committee understands that 
early closure of the Rocky Flats site could result in over 
$1,000,000,000 in saving.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $10,000,000 for 
cleanup activities related to TA-21 at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. The Committee believes that this work is more 
appropriately included under site closure projects than under 
the post-2006 account.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     516,857,000
Committee recommendation................................     241,857,000

    An appropriation of $241,857,000 is recommended for the 
environmental management privatization initiative. The 
Committee action is taken without prejudice.
    The Department of Energy continues to rely upon the private 
sector to accomplish it's mission of environmental cleanup. 
Privatization is just one tool used by DOE to implement 
alternative business strategies for the procurement of goods 
and services required to fulfill their cleanup 
responsibilities. The term ``privatization'' as used by DOE 
refers to a method of financing, contracting and risk-sharing 
between the Department and firms in the private sector for good 
or services, and involves the use of fixed price contracts 
under which contractors use private funding to design, 
construct, operate, and deactivate equipment and facilities 
required in the cleanup mission. The vendor then receives 
payment for producing products that meet DOE performance 
specifications. Budget authority is set aside to cover future 
contractual obligations, as well as to provide an incentive for 
private sector investment.
    The Committee recommends a reduction of $275,000,000 in the 
amount of additional budget authority to be held in reserve for 
privatization projects. Consistent with the Senate authorizing 
committee, the Committee recommends the following allocation of 
funding: $113,500,000 for the tank waste remediation system 
[TWRS] project, phase I; $20,000,000 for the spent nuclear fuel 
dry storage project; $87,300,000 for the advanced mixed waste 
treatment project; $19,600,000 for remote handled transuranic 
waste transportation (Carlsbad); and $33,500,000 for 
environmental/waste management disposal at Oak Ridge.
    While recommending reductions in the TWRS project, the 
Committee recommendation continues to support the cleanup 
effort, and believes that adequately treating and disposing of 
the high-level waste at Hanford in an essential priority. The 
Committee feels that the funding proposed should be sufficient 
for TWRS to proceed in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee directs that available fiscal year 1997 funds 
of $25,000,000 from canceled projects--the broad spectrum, 97-
PV-3, Oak Ridge project, $15,000,000; and the wastewater and 
sanitary treatment, 97-PVT-4, Rocky Flats project, $10,000,000, 
within defense environmental management privatization be made 
available to finance the fiscal year 1999 program. In addition, 
the Committee makes $7,000,000 of prior year balances available 
to cover the costs of the program in 1999.

                        recommendation summaries

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 1998....................................  $1,666,008,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................   1,667,160,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,661,160,000

    An appropriation of $1,661,160,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for other defense activities.
    This account includes the following programs: verification 
and control technology, nuclear safeguards and security, 
security investigations, security evaluations, the Office of 
Nuclear Safety, Worker, and Community Transition Assistance, 
fissile materials control and disposition, emergency 
management, international nuclear safety and security 
activities, and naval reactors. Descriptions of each account 
are provided below.

                 Nonproliferation and National Security

    Verification and control technology/arms control.--The 
Verification and Control Technology Program includes activities 
related to nonproliferation and verification research and 
development, arms control, and intelligence. The Department is 
engaged in an active nuclear nonproliferation program through 
research and development activities performed at the national 
laboratories, by providing technical and analytical support to 
treaty development and implementation, and by providing 
intelligence support to these efforts. The Committee 
recommendation totals $510,500,000. This is the same as the 
budget request. The Committee continues to strongly support 
these important national security programs.
    The Committee recommendation for verification and control 
technology research and development, and arms control totals 
$466,900,000. The funding level recommended by the Committee 
provides significant increases over the current year level for 
DOE to continue important activities related to the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including 
chemical and biological weapons; and increased initiatives to 
reduce the danger of nuclear smuggling and the associated 
potential of nuclear terrorism.
    The recommendation provides $152,263,000, the same as the 
budget request, for material protection, control, and 
accounting [MPC&A] activities. The Committee continues to 
consider these activities important to reducing the threat 
created by the breakup of the former Soviet Union.
    The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the 
continued development of Raman spectroscopy technology for the 
detection of chemical and biological agents.
    In light of recent underground nuclear tests by India and 
Pakistan, the Committee directs the Department to reevaluate 
the adequacy of its treaty verification responsibilities and 
activities, and to provide the Committee a report on any 
recommended changes or other needs prior to the Committee's 
hearings on the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the 
development and demonstration of dielectric wall accelerator 
technology for remote detonation, radiography, and fusion 
applications.
    Intelligence.--The Committee recommendation totals 
$43,600,000.
    The Office of Intelligence provides information and 
technical analysis on international arms proliferation, foreign 
nuclear programs, and other energy-related matters to 
policymakers in the Department and other U.S. Government 
agencies. The focus of the Department's intelligence analysis 
and reporting is on emerging proliferant nations, nuclear 
technology transfers, foreign nuclear materials production, and 
proliferation implications of the breakup of the former Soviet 
Union.
    The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 for 
the Department to continue its focus and expand 
counterintelligence programs at the national laboratories and 
other high-risk facilities related to openness issues.
    The Department of Energy is encouraged to review the need 
for, and to allocate sufficient funding from the 
Nonproliferation and National Security Program, for assistance 
to the Russian nuclear weapons dismantlement program to develop 
an effective emergency response capability. The Committee 
recognizes that as dismantlement increases under START II, the 
possibility of accident increases proportionately and an 
inadequate response by the Russian Government to the accident 
may place the disarmament treaty at risk. The Committee further 
recognizes the Nevada test site as the unique environment for 
such training without risking compromise of classified weapons 
design information.
    Emergency management.--The Committee has provided 
$23,700,000 for emergency management activities. The Office of 
Emergency Management serves as the single point of contact and 
control for all DOE emergency and threat assessment-related 
activities, and ensures an integrated response to emergencies 
affecting departmental operations and activities or requiring 
departmental assistance.
    Nuclear safeguards and security.--The Nuclear Safeguards 
and Security Program includes activities to assure adequate 
protection of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, facilities, 
and classified information against theft, sabotage, espionage, 
and terrorist activities. As departmental sites and facilities 
are decommissioned, safeguards and security costs are expected 
to decrease Departmentwide. The Committee concurs with the 
budget request of $53,200,000.
    The Committee recommendation supports the requirement to 
replace security locks that meet Federal specifications for 
containers that hold classified material. The Department should 
initiate a retrofit program that ensures that all containers 
holding sensitive, classified material are protected with 
security locks meeting Federal specifications.
    Security investigations.--The Security Investigations 
Program includes those activities necessary for granting 
appropriate security clearances to agency and Government 
contractor personnel who must in the performance of their work 
have access to restricted data, national security information, 
or special nuclear material, or who occupy a designated 
critical sensitive position. An appropriation of $30,000,000 is 
recommended by the Committee. This is the same as the budget 
request. The Committee understands that the cost of security 
clearances is to be offset by program organizations in the 
amount of $20,000,000.
    Funding adjustment.--The Committee has recommended a 
reduction of $10,000,000 to nonproliferation and national 
security to reflect the level of prior year balances in the 
program.

               Environment, safety, and health (Defense)

    The Office of Environment, Safety, and Health is the 
departmental resource that provides oversight in the areas of 
environment, safety, health, and safeguards and security 
performance. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$89,000,000, a $15,000,000 increase over the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation continues funding to support 
commitments under State health agreements, and studies 
conducted under a memorandum with the Department of Health and 
Human Services under defense activities as in past years. The 
recommendation also supports the program to monitor former DOE 
workers with significant occupational exposures at an increased 
level.
    The Department's budget request proposed moving $20,000,000 
of program direction, salaries and benefits to the nondefense 
portion of the bill. The Committee recommendation continues to 
fund these activities, as it has in past years, under other 
defense activities.
    Health studies.--The Committee is concerned with the large 
number, scope and wide variety of epidemiologic and other 
health-related studies undertaken by DOE and other agencies 
addressing the potential effects of DOE operations. These 
studies cover a broad range of issues--from workplace violence 
and smoking to radiation exposure on workers and communities. 
Studies on worker and community health are funded in 
environment, safety, and health [EH] through a memorandum of 
understanding [MOU] between DOE and the Department of Health 
and Human Services [HHS]. These studies are independently peer 
reviewed and administered by the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention. Additional studies are funded separately by the 
Office of Environmental Management [EM] and administered by the 
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] under 
its statutory authority under CERCLA. Finally, still other 
studies and medical monitoring programs are funded directly by 
both EH and EM.
    The Committee is concerned that the current arrangement for 
oversight provides insufficient focus within the Department and 
has resulted in duplication, overlap and increased costs in the 
studies undertaken. Further, there appears to a lack of a 
coherent, prioritized approach to selecting and conducting 
these studies. The Committee is aware, however, that DOE, with 
the cooperation of other agencies, has begun a process to 
consolidate and put in place a coherent plan to include a 
public health agenda for each DOE site. This should result in 
clearly defined study goals, objectives and priorities for 
ongoing and future studies. The Committee expects that all 
major, new programs will be specifically identified in its 
budget request.
    Further, the Committee directs that all DOE funded studies 
or other activities associated with the effects of radiation or 
other hazardous substances on DOE workers or communities be 
managed through the Office of Environment, Safety and Health, 
and that all funding for all HHS managed health activities, 
either through CDC or ATSDR, be incorporated into a single MOU 
with HHS. Prior to public release, all DOE-funded health 
studies shall be peer reviewed. Sufficient funding has been 
provided to complete the Hanford thyroid study in December 1998 
as scheduled. The Committee has also included $10,000,000 under 
defense environmental restoration and waste management for DOE-
funded studies or other activities associated with the health 
effects of radiation and other hazardous substances on DOE 
workers and communities.

               Worker And Community Transition Assistance

    In accordance with section 3161 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 1993 and as a result of a change in the 
work force at defense nuclear facilities, defense employees of 
the Department may be provided various options to minimize 
impacts of these work force structure changes. These options 
include retraining, early retirement incentives, preference in 
hiring, outplacement assistance, and relocation assistance. In 
addition, this program funds contractor employment reduction 
requirements for severance and separation payments.
    The Committee recommendation is $40,000,000 for this 
program. The recommendation supports the Department's 
commitment to the State of Idaho at the amount contained in the 
budget request.

               Fissile Materials Control and Disposition

    The Fissile Materials Control and Disposition Program is 
responsible for the technical and management activities to 
assess, plan, and direct efforts to provide for the safe, 
secure, environmentally sound long-term storage of all weapons-
usable fissile materials and the disposition of fissile 
materials declared surplus to national defense needs. The 
Committee recommendation is $168,960,000 the same as the budget 
request.
    Excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia is a clear and 
present danger to the security of the United States because of 
the possibility that it will fall into the hands of non-Russian 
entities and provide Russia with the ability to rebuild its 
nuclear arsenal at a rate the United States may be unable to 
equal.
    For that reason, the Committee considers the Department's 
material disposition program of equal importance to weapons 
activities; both are integral components of our national effort 
to reduce any threat posed to the United States and to deter 
the threat that remains.
    The Committee also strongly endorses the Department's 
decision to burn excess weapons plutonium in mixed-oxide fuel; 
the only disposition alternative that makes later recovery of 
remaining weapons grade material sufficiently difficult that 
the Committee considers the threat posed by that material to be 
acceptably low.
    The current United States disposition program originated in 
a domestic effort to reduce United States inventories of excess 
weapons grade plutonium without adequate consideration given to 
the threat posed by stockpiles of similar Russian material. 
While some efforts have been made to link the United States 
program to progress on plutonium disposition in Russia, those 
linkages are not sufficient. Current linkages are consultative 
in nature, lack explicitness, and are significantly imbalanced. 
While both countries have declared 50 tons of plutonium to be 
excess, both have substantially more than 50 tons in excess and 
Russia has multiples of the amount excess in the United States. 
Despite that, the current plans are for the United States to 
dispose of plutonium at an initial rate of 3 tons per year 
while Russia proceeds with an uncertain program for which 
financing is not yet available to dispose of only 1.3 tons per 
year. At a minimum, the two countries disposition programs 
should be conducted under a bilateral accord that sets specific 
schedules for materials disposition in both countries and 
Russian material must be converted to nonweapons forms at no 
less than the rate of United States material--anything else 
would amount to an unequal and irresponsible disarmament.
    In fact, the current U.S. policy is akin to a unilateral 
reduction in U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities with the hope 
that our traditional nuclear adversary will follow suit; a 
premise the Committee cannot accept.
    The Committee has two interests in this matter; to show 
support for the Department's decision to endorse the eventual 
use of mixed-oxide fuel for the disposition of excess weapons 
plutonium, and also ensure that the United States does not 
unwisely proceed with a program that does not ensure that an 
equal amount of plutonium will be converted to nonweapons forms 
by the Russian Federation.
    For that reason, the Committee has provided the full amount 
of the request, but has also included a statutory proviso that 
funds for the design, licensing, or construction of a mixed-
oxide fuel fabrication facility in the United States, shall be 
available only after the United States and the Russian 
Federation agree on a bilateral schedule for the conversion to 
nonweapons forms of excess weapons plutonium in accordance with 
which the conversion rate in the United States does not exceed 
the conversion rate in the Russian Federation.
    The Committee wants to see as much excess weapons plutonium 
in Russia and the United States disposed of as fast as 
possible, and regrets that the Committee's action will result 
in some initial delay. However, the current program is 
imbalanced and could pose a long-term threat to the national 
security of the United States unless the issues identified by 
the Committee are addressed.
    The Committee recommends that in negotiating the 
recommended bilateral agreement, the administration give 
serious consideration to utilizing mixed-oxide fuel fabrication 
facilities outside the United States and Russia and also to 
identify as many reactors as possible that might burn such 
fuel.
    The Committee recognizes that Russian plans to dispose of 
excess weapons plutonium are in part limited by the Russian 
Federation's limited requirement for mixed-oxide fuel. The 
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to support the 
joint United States-Russian program to develop an advanced 
reactor to consume large quantities of excess weapons 
plutonium.

                        Nuclear Energy (Defense)

    An appropriation of $35,000,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for international nuclear safety and nuclear security 
programs of DOE. This is the same as the budget request.
    The collapse of the former Soviet Union left many Russian 
nuclear reactors without the technical and financial support 
necessary to operate safely. Since 1992 the Department of 
Energy has undertaken efforts to develop a nuclear safety 
infrastructure and establish a safety culture at powerplants in 
the former Soviet Union and other central and Eastern European 
countries. The program has four major elements that are 
critical to achieving lasting improvements in nuclear safety 
culture and infrastructure development. They are improvement of 
the capabilities of the plant operators; improvement of the 
physical condition of the plants; provide professionals in 
design, operation and regulation needed to conduct safety 
analyses; and assistance in the development of domestic 
liability legislation necessary to establish a strong, 
independent regulatory authority.
    The Committee is aware that RedZone Robotics has worked 
successfully with an international consortium to remove nuclear 
waste from Chornobyl and has the ability to remove nuclear 
waste from storage tanks in Russia and the New Independent 
States. The Committee encourages the Department to review 
RedZone's proposal in this regard to determine whether it meets 
the objectives of the international nuclear safety program.

                             Naval Reactors

    The Naval Reactors Program provides for the design, 
development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear 
propulsion plants and reactor cores having long fuel life, high 
reliability, improved performances, and simplified operating 
and maintenance requirements. The nuclear propulsion plants and 
cores cover a wide range of configurations and power ratings 
suitable for installation in naval combatants varying in size 
from small submarines to large surface ships. The Committee 
recommendation is $665,500,000.
    While the Committee is unable to provide additional funding 
to optimize the program to shutdown prototype reactors and 
conduct remediation work, the Committee supports this effort 
and urges the Department to review the need for additional 
funding and to take appropriate action to request additional 
resources as may be needed in future budgets.

                        RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $190,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     190,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     185,000,000

    The Committee recommends $185,000,000 for defense nuclear 
waste disposal.
    Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 
amended, the nuclear waste fund has incurred costs for 
activities related to disposal of high-level waste generated 
from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of 
Energy. At the end of fiscal year 1997, the balance owed by the 
Federal Government to the nuclear waste fund was $1,039,000,000 
(including principal and interest). The ``Defense nuclear waste 
disposal'' appropriation was established to ensure payment of 
the Federal Government's contribution to the nuclear waste 
repository program. Through fiscal year 1998, a total of 
$987,800,000 has been appropriated to support nuclear waste 
repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense 
activities.
    The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 to assess 
the application of advanced accelerator technology to the 
transmutation of high-level defense waste. The Committee is 
funding significant research in high power linear accelerator 
design for defense and nondefense purposes. The Committee is 
also aware of recent advances in accelerator target design 
employing pyrochemistry and liquid lead-bismuth eutectic 
technology for both the target and cooling that, coupled with a 
high power accelerator, may provide an opportunity to 
significantly reduce the radioactivity and radiotoxicity of 
certain isotopes. The Committee directs that this work be 
coordinated with work being done in other program offices on 
the development of high power accelerator technology.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

    Public Law 95-91 transferred to the Department of Energy 
the power marketing functions under section 5 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Department 
of the Interior with respect to the Alaska Power 
Administration, Bonneville Power Administration, Southeastern 
Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and 
the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation, now 
included in the Western Area Power Administration.
    All power marketing administrations except Bonneville are 
funded annually with appropriations, and related receipts are 
deposited in the Treasury. Bonneville operations are self-
financed under authority of Public Law 93-454, the Federal 
Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, which 
authorizes Bonneville to use its revenues to finance operating 
costs, maintenance and capital construction, and sell bonds to 
the Treasury if necessary to finance any remaining capital 
program requirements.

         operation and maintenance, alaska power administration

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $13,500,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

    The Alaska Power Administration [APA] is responsible for 
operation, maintenance, and marketing of power for the 78-
megawatt Snettisham project near Juneau.
    Public Law 104-58 authorizes the sale of the APA assets. 
The Snettisham project will be sold to the State of Alaska. The 
Department and the APA expect to complete sale of the project 
by August 1998.
    The Committee is aware that oil is leaking from one of the 
APA's submerged cables used to transmit power from the 
Snettisham hydroelectric facility to Juneau. Unfortunately, 
because the APA staff has been reduced from 31 to 8 over the 
previous year in anticipation of the APA's sale, the staff no 
longer has the engineering or procurement expertise to conduct 
the major technical procurement necessary to replace the cable.
    In order to address this problem, the Committee has 
provided $5,000,000, in addition to the $2,500,000 provided in 
the current year, to assist in the cost to replace the cable. 
It is the Committee's hope that, prior to final disposition of 
this act, an agreement could be reached between the APA and the 
State of Alaska by which the APA would make a contribution to 
the State to cover the cost of replacing a single cable or, at 
the discretion of the State, the funds could be used to 
partially fund the replacement of all four cables.

                  bonneville power administration fund

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Federal electric 
power marketing agency in the Pacific Northwest, a 300,000-
square-mile service area that encompasses Oregon, Washington, 
Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of adjacent Western 
States in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets 
hydroelectric power from 29 Corps of Engineers and Bureau of 
Reclamation projects, as well as thermal energy from non-
Federal generating facilities in the region. Bonneville also 
markets and exchanges surplus electric power interregionally 
over the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie with 
California, and in Canada over interconnections with utilities 
in British Columbia.
    Bonneville constructs, operates, and maintains the Nation's 
largest high-voltage transmission system, consisting of 14,800 
circuit-miles of transmission line and 400 substations with an 
installed capacity of 21,500 megawatts.
    Public Law 93-454, the Federal Columbia River Transmission 
System Act of 1974, placed Bonneville on a self-financed basis. 
With the passage in 1980 of Public Law 96-501, the Pacific 
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, 
Bonneville's responsibilities were expanded to include meeting 
the net firm load growth of the region, investing in cost-
effective, regionwide energy conservation, and acquiring 
generating resources to meet these requirements.
    Borrowing authority.--A total of $3,750,000,000 has been 
made available to Bonneville as permanent borrowing authority. 
Each year the Committee reviews the budgeted amounts Bonneville 
plans to use of this total and reports a recommendation on 
these borrowing requirements. For fiscal year 1998, the 
Committee recommends an additional increment of $258,000,000 in 
new borrowing authority, the same as the budget request, for 
transmission system construction, system replacement, energy 
resources, fish and wildlife, and capitol equipment programs.
    Repayment.--During fiscal year 1998, Bonneville will pay 
the Treasury $614,000,000, of which $164,000,000 is to repay 
principal on the Federal investment in these facilities.
    Limitation on direct loans.--The Committee recommends that 
no new direct loans be made in fiscal year 1998.
    Budget revisions and notification.--The Committee expects 
Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates 
recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee 
of any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the 
need for Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess 
of such amounts.
    The Committee recognizes that last year the Members of the 
northwest congressional delegation wrote to the administration, 
urging that a new agreement on funding for mitigation of the 
fish and wildlife financial impacts of the Federal Columbia 
River Power System [FCRPS] be executed by April 30, 1998. The 
Committee commends the administration for its effort to develop 
a new agreement for these costs, but at this time one has not 
been completed. Therefore, unless the Bonneville Power 
Administration and other applicable Federal agencies have 
executed a definitive agreement setting specific dollar cost 
limitations with regard to funding for mitigation of the fish 
and wildlife impacts of the Federal Columbia River Power System 
for fiscal years 2002-06 by September 1, 1998, it is the 
Committee's sense that current levels of funding for mitigation 
of these fish and wildlife impacts should extend until October 
1, 2006.
    Last March Bonneville and the Northwest Power Planning 
Council completed the cost review of the Federal Columbia River 
Power System [FCRPS] and submitted the final recommendations to 
the Committee. The review covered planned costs of the FCRPS, 
including transmission, with a focus on projected costs for 
Bonneville's next rate period, fiscal years 2002-06. The 
recommendations identified approximately $146,000,000 in 
reductions to planned power expenses during this period. 
Although the Committee understands that some of the 
recommendations require legislation, it believes that 
Bonneville should begin preparing now to implement the 
recommendations no later than October 1, 2001.
    The Committee is particularly interested in the 
recommendations pertaining to the need for an integrated 
capital asset management strategy involving Bonneville, the 
Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Cost 
Review Management Committee estimated that such a strategy 
would produce about $48,000,000 per year in savings during the 
5-year period.
    The Committee directs Bonneville to work with the Corps and 
the Bureau in developing an integrated capital asset management 
strategy directed at maximizing value, including both financial 
returns and public benefits. The strategy should encompass the 
operation and maintenance of the FCRPS, including transmission, 
physical assets, a coordinated investment plan, and the 
creation of integrated performance measures. Bonneville shall 
submit a draft integrated capital asset management strategy to 
the Committee no later than March 1, 1999.
    Administrative provisions.--In order to facilitate 
administrative cost savings of the Bonneville Power 
Administration and promote sales of Federal power both in the 
forthcoming subscription process and in the future, the 
Committee has included bill language clarifying the authority 
of the Administrator to sell Federal power to an entity formed 
by existing regional public body and cooperative customers of 
Bonneville. This entity is an organization called a joint 
operating entity which must be composed solely of public bodies 
and cooperatives of the Pacific Northwest region that are 
qualified to purchase requirements firm electric power service 
from Bonneville. Other Federal power marketing agencies 
currently make aggregated power sales to such entities for 
public bodies and cooperatives. BPA does the same for 
transmission contracts, nonfirm, and surplus power sales, but 
not requirements firm power sales.
    The language does not expand any such customer's rights to 
purchase requirements firm power from Bonneville and does not 
allow resale by the joint operating entity of such power to 
customers that are not its members or participants. No joint 
operating entity, or combination of them, could purchase from 
Bonneville more requirements firm power from the sum of the 
purchases that its public body and cooperative members or 
participants could make if acting individually. Public body and 
cooperative customers participating in such joint operating 
entities do not waive existing rights.
    The sole purpose of this provision is administrative in 
nature to assure that the Bonneville Power Administration takes 
advantage of its authority to sell requirements firm power to 
regional public body and cooperative customers who form and 
choose to aggregate their purchases of requirements Bonneville 
power through such joint operating entities.

      operation and maintenance, southeastern power administration

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $12,222,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       8,500,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,500,000

    The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 10 
Southeastern States. There are 23 projects now in operation 
with an installed capacity of 3,092 megawatts. Southeastern 
does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries 
out its marketing program by utilizing the existing 
transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This 
is accomplished through wheeling arrangements between 
Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission 
lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver 
specified amounts of Federal power to customers of the 
Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility 
for the wheeling service performed.

      operation and maintenance, southwestern power administration

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $25,210,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      26,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,000,000

    The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing 
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric plants in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed 
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some 
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 
24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to 
publicly and cooperatively owned electric distribution 
utilities.

 construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance western area 
                          power administration

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $189,043,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     215,435,000
Committee recommendation................................     215,435,000

    The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission which operate hydropower 
generating plants in 15 Central and Western States encompassing 
a 1.3-million-square-mile geographic area. Western is also 
responsible for the operation and maintenance of 16,727 miles 
of high-voltage transmission lines with 257 substations. 
Western distributes power generated by 55 plants with a maximum 
operating capacity of 10,576 megawatts.
    Western, through its power marketing program, must secure 
revenues sufficient to meet the annual costs of operation and 
maintenance of the generating and transmission facilities, 
purchased power, wheeling, and other expenses, in order to 
repay all of the power investment with interest, and to repay 
that portion of the Government's irrigation and other nonpower 
investments which are beyond the water users' repayment 
capability. Under the Colorado River Basin power marketing 
fund, which encompasses the Colorado River Basin, Fort Peck, 
and Colorado River storage facilities, all operation and 
maintenance and power marketing expenses are financed from 
revenues.
    The amount to be deposited in the ``Utah reclamation 
mitigation and conservation'' account is $5,036,000, the same 
amount as the request.

           falcon and amistad operating and maintenance fund

    Creation of the Falcon and Amistad operating and 
maintenance fund was directed by the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994-95. This legislation also 
directed that the fund be administered by the Administrator of 
the Western Area Power Administration for use by the 
Commissioner of the United States Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission to defray operation, maintenance, 
and emergency costs for the hydroelectric facilities at the 
Falcon and Amistad Dams in Texas.
    The Committee recommendation is $1,010,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                        recommendation summaries

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $162,141,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     168,898,000
Committee recommendation................................     168,898,000

                salaries and expenses--revenues applied

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $162,141,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     196,958,000
Committee recommendation................................     168,898,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $168,898,000 for the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Revenues are established 
at a rate equal to the amount provided for program activities, 
resulting in a net appropriation of zero.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    The Committee recommendation includes two Department of 
Energy general provisions not included in the current year 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
    Waste isolation pilot plant waste acceptance criteria.--The 
Committee recommends a prohibition on decreasing the 
concentration of radioactive contamination in waste so that 
such waste complies with the waste acceptance criteria for the 
waste isolation pilot plant.
    Office of Science Research.--In the fiscal year 1998 Energy 
and Water Development Act, the Congress substantially 
reorganized the ``Energy supply research and development'' 
account of the Department of Energy to create two separate 
accounts; Energy research, and science. The Department of 
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7139) mandates the 
establishment of an Office of Energy Research within the 
Department of Energy headed by a Director of Energy Research. 
In accordance with the Committee's reorganization of the 
``Energy supply research and development'' account, the 
Department's science programs have been consolidated within the 
Office of Energy Research, and energy research programs are 
managed by other program offices; largely the Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the 
Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy. Consistent with the 
reorganization imposed by the Congress, the Committee 
recommends an amendment to the Department of Energy 
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7139) to rename the Office of 
Energy Research the Office of Science Research headed by a 
Director of Science Research.

                                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY                                              
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Current year                          Committee   
                       Project title                             enacted       Budget estimate   recommendation 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       ENERGY SUPPLY                                                                            
                                                                                                                
        SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES TECHNOLOGIES                                                              
                                                                                                                
Solar energy:                                                                                                   
    Solar building technology research....................            2,720             5,000             3,600 
    Photovoltaic energy systems...........................           66,511            78,800            57,110 
    Photovoltaic energy research..........................            2,274             2,883             2,883 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Photovoltaic..............................           68,785            81,683            59,993 
                                                           =====================================================
    Solar thermal energy systems..........................           16,775            22,500            17,100 
                                                           =====================================================
    Biomass/biofuels energy systems:                                                                            
        Power systems.....................................           28,600            42,900            22,800 
        Transportation....................................           31,150            46,891            36,213 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Biomass/biofuels energy systems.......           59,750            89,791            59,013 
    Biomass/biofuels energy research......................           38,635            27,199            27,199 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Biomass...................................           98,385           116,990            86,212 
                                                           =====================================================
    Wind energy systems...................................           33,030            43,500            33,200 
    Wind energy research..................................              295               283               283 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Wind......................................           33,325            43,783            33,483 
                                                           =====================================================
    Renewable energy production incentive program.........            3,000             4,000             3,000 
    Solar program support.................................  ................           14,000             4,000 
    International solar energy program....................            1,375             8,800             3,400 
    Solar technology transfer.............................  ................            1,360   ................
    National renewable energy laboratory..................            1,000             5,000             1,000 
    Construction: 96-E-100 FTLB renovation and expansion,                                                       
     Golden, CO...........................................            2,200   ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, National renewable energy laboratory......            3,200             5,000             1,000 
                                                           =====================================================
    Solar photoconversion (ER)............................  ................           14,532            14,532 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Solar Energy.................................          227,565           317,648           226,320 
                                                           =====================================================
Geothermal: Geothermal technology development.............           29,500            33,000            18,000 
                                                           =====================================================
Hydrogen research.........................................           16,250            24,000            29,000 
Hydrogen energy research..................................            3,100             3,008             3,008 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Hydrogen.....................................           19,350            27,008            32,008 
                                                           =====================================================
Hydropower................................................              750             4,000             4,000 
Renewable Indian energy resources.........................            4,000   ................            4,000 
                                                           =====================================================
Electric energy systems and storage:                                                                            
    Transmission reliability..............................  ................  ................            5,000 
    Electric and magnetic fields R&D......................            8,000   ................  ................
    High temperature superconducting R&D..................           32,500            32,000            31,000 
    Energy storage systems................................            3,950             6,000             6,000 
    Climate challenge.....................................  ................              500               500 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Electric energy systems and storage..........           44,450            38,500            42,500 
                                                           =====================================================
Federal building/Remote power initiative..................            5,000   ................            3,000 
Program direction.........................................           15,651            17,000            15,651 
Prior year projects.......................................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES TECHNOLOGIES...          346,266           437,156           345,479 
                                                           =====================================================
                      NUCLEAR ENERGY                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Nuclear energy R&D:                                                                                             
    Light water reactor...................................  ................  ................  ................
    Advanced radioisotope power system....................           40,500            40,500            40,500 
    Nuclear technology R&D................................  ................           25,000            25,000 
    Oak Ridge landlord....................................            9,500   ................  ................
    Test reactor area landlord............................            3,000             4,634             4,634 
        Construction:                                                                                           
            99-E-200 Test reactor area electrical utility                                                       
             upgrade, Idaho National Engineering                                                                
             Laboratory, ID...............................  ................              341               341 
            95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and life                                                            
             safety improvements, Idaho National                                                                
             Engineering Laboratory, ID...................            4,425             2,425             2,425 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Test reactor area landlord........            7,425             7,400             7,400 
    Advanced test reactor fusion irradiation..............  ................  ................  ................
    University reactor fuel assistance and support........            7,000            10,000            10,000 
    Nuclear energy research initiative....................  ................           24,000            24,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear energy R&D...........................           64,425           106,900           106,900 
                                                           =====================================================
Facilities................................................  ................           96,150            64,950 
                                                           =====================================================
Termination costs.........................................           77,035   ................  ................
    Construction:                                                                                               
        97-E-200 Modifications to reactors, sodium system                                                       
         drain and closure, Argonne National Lab--West, ID  ................  ................  ................
        97-E-201 Modifications to reactors, hot fuel                                                            
         examination facility equipment upgrades, ANL-W...  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction..........................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, Termination costs........................           77,035   ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
Uranium programs..........................................           61,600            66,700            55,362 
    Construction:                                                                                               
        98-U-200 depleted UF6 cylinder storage yards,                                                           
         Paducah, KY......................................              400   ................  ................
        96-U-201 depleted UF6 cylinder storage yards,                                                           
         Paducah, KY......................................            2,600   ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction..........................            3,000   ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, Uranium programs.........................           64,600            66,700            55,362 
                                                           =====================================================
Isotope support...........................................           16,000            16,450            16,450 
    Construction: 99-E-201 Isotope production facility,                                                         
     LANL.................................................  ................            6,000             6,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Isotope support..............................           16,000            22,450            22,450 
                                                           =====================================================
Nuclear energy plant optimization.........................  ................           10,000            10,000 
Program direction.........................................           21,000            23,550            21,000 
Prior year projects.......................................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY...............................          243,060           325,750           280,662 
                                                           =====================================================
              ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH                                                                    
                                                                                                                
Environment, safety and health............................           42,500            37,602            37,602 
Program direction.........................................           23,550            38,398            18,398 
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH...............           66,050            76,000            56,000 
                                                           =====================================================
                      ENERGY RESEARCH                                                                           
                                                                                                                
Fusion energy sciences program............................          232,000           228,160   ................
Prior year projects.......................................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY RESEARCH..............................          232,000           228,160   ................
                                                           =====================================================
                 ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES                                                                      
                                                                                                                
Technical information management program..................            1,600             2,340             1,600 
    Program direction.....................................            7,500             7,500             6,500 
    Construction..........................................            1,000   ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Technical information management program.....           10,100             9,840             8,100 
                                                           =====================================================
Field offices and management..............................           95,000           104,541            95,000 
Oak Ridge Landlord........................................  ................           12,500            12,500 
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES....................          105,100           126,881           115,600 
                                                           =====================================================
      Subtotal, Energy supply.............................          992,476         1,193,947           797,741 
                                                           =====================================================
Renewable energy research program.........................          -44,304           -47,905           -47,905 
Use of prior year balances................................          -31,535           -17,000           -50,000 
General reduction for contractor training.................           -9,830   ................  ................
Prior year projects.......................................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY................................          906,807         1,129,042           699,836 
                                                           =====================================================
         URANIUM SUPPLY AND ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES                                                               
                                                                                                                
Uranium program activities................................  ................  ................  ................
    Program direction.....................................  ................  ................  ................
    Construction:                                                                                               
        96-U-201 depleted UF6 cylinder storage yards,                                                           
         Paducah, Kentucky gaseous diffusion plant........  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Uranium supply & enrichment activities  ................  ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
Revenues--Sales...........................................  ................  ................  ................
Use of prior year balances................................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, URANIUM SUPPLY AND ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES.....  ................  ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
           NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT                                                                 
                                                                                                                
Site closure..............................................          269,911           254,344           254,344 
Site/project completion...................................          113,950            97,248            97,248 
Post 2006 completion......................................           82,294            83,908            83,908 
Science and technology....................................  ................           26,500   ................
Fast flux test facility standby/shutdown..................           30,904   ................           31,200 
Use of prior year balances................................  ................  ................          -10,000 
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.........          497,059           462,000           456,700 
                                                           =====================================================
  URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING                                                        
                           FUND                                                                                 
                                                                                                                
Decontamination and decommissioning.......................          180,200           242,000           170,000 
Uranium/thorium reimbursement.............................           40,000            35,000            30,000 
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND                                                             
       DECOMMISSIONING....................................          220,200           277,000           200,000 
                                                           =====================================================
                          SCIENCE                                                                               
                                                                                                                
High energy physics:                                                                                            
    Research and technology...............................          210,240           213,365           213,365 
    Facility operations...................................          418,945           456,635           456,635 
        Construction:                                                                                           
            99-G-306 Wilson hall safety improvements,                                                           
             Fermilab.....................................  ................            6,700             6,700 
            98-G-304 Neutrinos at the main injector,                                                            
             Fermilab.....................................            5,500            14,300            14,300 
            98-G-305 C-Zero area experimental hall,                                                             
             Fermilab.....................................            5,000   ................  ................
            97-G-303 Master substation upgrade, SLAC......            9,400   ................  ................
            94-G-304 B-Factory, SLAC......................  ................  ................  ................
            92-G-302 Fermilab main injector, Fermilab.....           30,950   ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction......................           50,850            21,000            21,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Facility operations...............          469,795           477,635           477,635 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Total, High energy physics..................          680,035           691,000           691,000 
                                                           =====================================================
Nuclear physics...........................................          261,525           315,980           315,980 
    Construction: 91-G-300 Relativistic heavy ion                                                               
     collider, BNL........................................           59,400            16,620            16,620 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear physics..............................          320,925           332,600           332,600 
                                                           =====================================================
Biological and environmental research.....................          406,710           392,600           407,600 
    Construction:                                                                                               
        94-E-339 Human genome lab, LBL....................  ................  ................  ................
        91-EM-100 Environmental & molecular sciences                                                            
         laboratory, PNL, Richland, WA....................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction..........................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, Biological and environmental research....          406,710           392,600           407,600 
                                                           =====================================================
Basic energy sciences:                                                                                          
    Materials sciences....................................          392,475           417,216           417,216 
    Chemical sciences.....................................          199,933           209,582           209,582 
    Applied mathematical sciences.........................  ................  ................  ................
    Engineering and geosciences...........................           41,371            44,413            44,413 
    Energy biosciences....................................           27,461            32,489            32,489 
    Capital equipment.....................................  ................  ................  ................
    Construction:                                                                                               
        99-E-334 Spallation Neutron Source, ORNL..........  ................          128,400           128,400 
        GPE-400 General plant projects....................  ................  ................  ................
        97-E-305 Accelerator and reactor improvements and                                                       
         modifications, various locations.................  ................  ................  ................
        95-E-305 Accelerator improvement projects.........  ................  ................  ................
        96-E-300 Combustion research facility, Phase II,                                                        
         SNL/L............................................            7,000             4,000             4,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction..........................            7,000           132,400           132,400 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, Basic energy sciences....................          668,240           836,100           836,100 
                                                           =====================================================
Other energy research:                                                                                          
    Computational and technology research.................          150,907           160,640           150,000 
    Energy research analyses..............................            1,500             1,000             1,000 
    Program direction.....................................  ................  ................  ................
    Multiprogram energy labs--facility support:                                                                 
        Multiprogram general purpose facilities:                                                                
            Infrastructure support........................  ................            1,160             1,160 
            Construction:                                                                                       
                MEL-001 Multiprogram energy laboratory                                                          
                 infrastructure projects, various                                                               
                 locations................................            7,259            14,924            14,924 
                95-E-301 Central heating plant                                                                  
                 rehabilitation, Phase I (ANL)............            3,442   ................  ................
                95-E-303 Electrical safety rehab (PNL)....  ................  ................  ................
                95-E-310 Multiprogram laboratory                                                                
                 rehabilitation, phase I (PNL)............  ................  ................  ................
                94-E-363 Roofing improvements (ORNL)......            4,000             4,908             4,908 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Multiprogram gen. purpose                                                           
                   facilities.............................           14,701            19,832            19,832 
                                                           =====================================================
        Environment, safety and health:                                                                         
            Construction:                                                                                       
                96-E-333 Multiprogram energy laboratories                                                       
                 upgrades, various locations..............            5,273               268               268 
                95-E-307 Fire safety imp. III (ANL).......              718   ................  ................
                95-E-308 Sanitary system mods. II (BNL)...              568   ................  ................
                95-E-309 Loss prevention upgrades (BNL)...  ................  ................  ................
                93-E-320 Fire and safety improvements,                                                          
                 phase II (ANL)...........................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Environment, safety and health            6,559               268               268 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Multiprogram energy labs--fac.                                                      
                   support................................           21,260            21,260            21,260 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Other energy research............          173,667           182,900           172,260 
                                                           =====================================================
Fusion energy sciences program............................  ................  ................          232,000 
University science education programs: Laboratory                                                               
 cooperative science centers..............................  ................           15,000   ................
Program direction.........................................           37,600            39,860            37,600 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science...................................        2,287,177         2,490,060         2,709,160 
                                                           =====================================================
Use of prior year SSC balances............................          -35,000            -7,600            -7,600 
Use of other prior year balances..........................          -13,800   ................          -12,000 
General reduction for contractor training.................           -2,669   ................  ................
Use of prior year project balances........................  ................  ................          -20,000 
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, SCIENCE......................................        2,235,708         2,482,460         2,669,560 
                                                           =====================================================
                DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION                                                                     
                                                                                                                
Administrative operations:                                                                                      
    Salaries and expenses:                                                                                      
        Office of the Secretary...........................            2,500             4,251             4,251 
        Board of contract appeals.........................  ................  ................              722 
        Chief financial officer...........................  ................  ................           22,200 
        Congressional and intergovernmental affairs.......  ................  ................            5,111 
        Economic impact and diversity.....................  ................  ................            4,819 
        Field management..................................  ................  ................            7,926 
        General counsel...................................  ................  ................           19,500 
        Human resources and administration................  ................  ................           97,000 
        Policy office.....................................  ................  ................           15,449 
        Public affairs....................................  ................  ................            3,812 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and expenses.................            2,500             4,251           180,790 
    General management--personnel compensation and                                                              
     benefits.............................................          101,695           106,210   ................
    Severance, termination and related cost...............  ................  ................  ................
    General management--other expenses....................           73,000            77,578   ................
    Program support:                                                                                            
        Minority economic impact..........................            1,650             1,880             1,880 
        Policy analysis and system studies................              500               500               500 
        Consumer affairs..................................               40                19                19 
        Public affairs....................................               50                38                38 
        Environmental policy studies......................            1,750             2,500             2,500 
        Scientific and technical training.................              500               500               500 
        Information management............................            6,000             8,000             8,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Program support.......................           10,490            13,437            13,437 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, Administrative operations................          187,685           201,476           194,227 
                                                           =====================================================
Cost of work for others...................................           37,470            44,312            44,312 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental Administration...............          225,155           245,788           238,539 
Use of prior year balances and other adjustments..........           -1,000   ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental administration (gross)..........          224,155           245,788           238,539 
Miscellaneous revenues....................................         -136,738          -136,530          -136,530 
Transfer from other defense activities....................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net)............           87,417           109,258           102,009 
                                                           =====================================================
                OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL                                                                     
                                                                                                                
Office of Inspector General...............................           27,500            29,500            27,500 
Use of prior year balances................................  ................  ................  ................
Transfer from other defense activities....................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL..................           27,500            29,500            27,500 
                                                           =====================================================
             ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES                                                                   
                                                                                                                
                    WEAPONS ACTIVITIES                                                                          
                                                                                                                
Stockpile stewardship:                                                                                          
    Core stockpile stewardship............................        1,288,290         1,505,832         1,480,832 
        Construction:                                                                                           
            99-D-102 Rehabilitation of maintenance                                                              
             facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA................  ................            6,500             6,500 
            99-D-103 Isotope sciences facility, LLNL                                                            
             Livermore, CA................................  ................            4,000             4,000 
            99-D-104 Protection of real property (roof                                                          
             reconstruction, Phase II), LLNL, Livermore CA  ................            7,300             7,300 
            99-D-105 Central health physics calibration                                                         
             facility, LANL, Los Alamos,NM................  ................            3,900             3,900 
            99-D-106 Model validation and system                                                                
             certification test center, SNL Albuquerque,                                                        
             NM...........................................  ................            1,600             1,600 
            99-D-107 Joint computational engineering                                                            
             laboratory, JCEL, SNL, Albuquerque, NM.......  ................            1,800             1,800 
            99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways, Nevada                                                         
             Test Site, NV................................  ................            2,000             2,000 
            97-D-102 Dual-axis radiographic hydrotest                                                           
             facility, LANL, Los Alamos, NM...............           46,300            36,000            36,000 
            96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship facilities                                                           
             revitalization, Phase VI, various locations..           19,810            20,423            20,423 
            96-D-103 ATLAS, Los Alamos National Laboratory           13,400             6,400             6,400 
            96-D-104 Processing and environmental                                                               
             technology laboratory, SNL...................  ................           18,920            18,920 
            96-D-105 Contained firing facility addition,                                                        
             LLNL.........................................           19,300             6,700             6,700 
            94-D-102 Nuclear Weapons Research, development                                                      
             and testing facilities revitalization, Phase                                                       
             V, various locations.........................  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Construction....................           98,810           115,543           115,543 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                Subtotal, Core stockpile stewardship......        1,387,100         1,621,375         1,596,375 
    Inertial fusion.......................................          217,000           213,800           213,800 
        Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility,                                                      
         TBD..............................................          197,800           284,200           284,200 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Inertial fusion.......................          414,800           498,000           498,000 
    Technology transfer/education:                                                                              
        Technology transfer...............................           56,250            60,000            60,000 
        Education.........................................            9,000             9,000             9,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Technology transfer/education.........           65,250            69,000            69,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, Stockpile stewardship....................        1,867,150         2,188,375         2,163,375 
                                                           =====================================================
Stockpile management......................................        1,891,265         1,935,803         1,980,803 
    Construction:                                                                                               
        99-D-122 Rapid reactivation,various locations.....  ................           11,200            11,200 
        99-D-123 Replace mechanical utility systems, Y-12,                                                      
         Oak Ridge, TN....................................  ................            1,900   ................
        99-D-125 Replace boilers & controls Kansas City                                                         
         Plant, Kansas City, MO...........................  ................            1,000   ................
        99-D-127 Stockpile management restructuring                                                             
         initiative, Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO...  ................           13,700            13,700 
        99-D-128 Stockpile management restructuring                                                             
         initiative, Pantex consolidation, Amarillo, TX...  ................            1,108             1,108 
        99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and                                                           
         security upgrade project, LANL, Los Alamos, NM...  ................            9,700             9,700 
        98-D-123 Stockpile mgmt. restructuring init                                                             
         Tritium factory modernization and consolidation,                                                       
         Savannah River,  SC..............................           11,000            27,500            27,500 
        98-D-124 Stockpile mgmt. restructuring initiative                                                       
         Y-12 consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN................            6,450            10,700            10,700 
        98-D-125 Tritium extraction facility, SC..........            9,650   ................  ................
        98-D-126 Acceleration prod. of tritium, VL........           67,865   ................  ................
        97-D-121 Consolidated pit packaging system, Pantex                                                      
         plant, Amarillo, TX..............................  ................  ................  ................
        97-D-122 Nuclear materials storage facility                                                             
         renovation, LANL, Los Alamos, NM.................            9,200             9,164             3,764 
        97-D-123 Structural upgrades, Kansas City plant,                                                        
         Kansas City, KS..................................  ................            6,400             6,400 
        97-D-124 Steam plant waste water treatment                                                              
         facility, upgrade, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN.....            1,900   ................  ................
        96-D-122 Sewage treatment quality upgrade (STQU)                                                        
         Pantex plant.....................................            6,900             3,700             3,700 
        96-D-123 Retrofit HVAC and chillers, for Ozone                                                          
         protection Y-12 plant............................            2,700   ................  ................
        96-D-125 Washington measurement operations                                                              
         facility, Andrews Air Force Base, MD.............  ................  ................  ................
        95-D-102 Chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR)                                                        
         upgrades project, LANL...........................            5,000            16,000             5,000 
        95-D-122 Sanitary sewer upgrade, Y-12 plant.......           12,600   ................  ................
        94-D-124 Hydrogen fluoride supply system, Y-12                                                          
         plant............................................            1,400   ................  ................
        94-D-125 Upgrade life safety, Kansas City plant...            2,000   ................  ................
        94-D-127 Emergency notification system, Pantex                                                          
         plant............................................  ................  ................  ................
        93-D-122 Life safety upgrades, Y-12 plant.........            2,100             3,250             3,250 
        93-D-123 Non-nuclear reconfiguration, various                                                           
         locations........................................  ................  ................  ................
        92-D-126 replace emergency notification system, VL            3,200   ................  ................
        88-D-122 Facilities capability assurance program                                                        
         (FCAP), various locations........................           18,920   ................  ................
        88-D-123 Security enhancement, Pantex plant.......  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction..........................          160,885           115,322            96,022 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, Stockpile management.....................        2,052,150         2,051,125         2,076,825 
                                                           =====================================================
Program direction.........................................          250,000           260,500           255,500 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weapons activities........................        4,169,300         4,500,000         4,495,700 
                                                           =====================================================
Use of prior year balances................................           -2,608   ................          -50,000 
General reduction.........................................          -20,000   ................  ................
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES...........................        4,146,692         4,500,000         4,445,700 
                                                           =====================================================
     DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT.                                                          
                                                                                                                
Site/project completion:                                                                                        
    Operation and maintenance.............................          863,792           848,090           848,090 
    Construction:                                                                                               
        99-D-402 Tank farm support services, F&H area,                                                          
         Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC...................  ................            2,745             2,745 
        99-D-404 Health physics instrumentation                                                                 
         laboratory, INEL, Id.............................  ................              950               950 
        98-D-401 H-tank farm storm water systems upgrade,                                                       
         Savannah River, SC...............................            1,000             3,120             3,120 
        98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization and handling                                                           
         system for PFP, Richland, WA.....................            8,136            26,814            26,814 
        98-D-700 INEL road rehabilitation, INEL, ID.......              500             7,710             7,710 
        97-D-450 Actinide packaging and storage facility,                                                       
         Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC...................           18,000            79,184            79,184 
        97-D-451 B-Plant safety class ventilation                                                               
         upgrades, Richland, WA...........................            2,000   ................  ................
        97-D-470 Regulatory monitoring and bioassay lab,                                                        
         Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC...................            5,600             7,000             7,000 
        96-D-406 Spent nuclear fuels canister storage and                                                       
         stabilization facility, Richland, WA.............           16,744            38,680            38,680 
        96-D-408 Waste management upgrades, Kansas City                                                         
         Plant and SR.....................................            8,200             4,512             4,512 
        96-D-461 Electrical distribution upgrade, Idaho                                                         
         National Engineering Laboratory, ID..............            2,927   ................  ................
        96-D-464 Electrical & utility systems upgrade,                                                          
         Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, Idaho National                                                        
         Engineering Laboratory, ID.......................           14,985            11,544            11,544 
        96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit, Savannah River                                                      
         Site, Aiken, SC..................................            8,500             8,000             8,000 
        95-D-155 Upgrade site road infrastructure,                                                              
         Savannah River, South Carolina...................            2,713   ................  ................
        95-D-456 Security facilities consolidation, Idaho                                                       
         Chemical Processing Plant, INEL, ID..............              602               485               485 
        94-D-401 Emergency response facility, INEL, ID....  ................  ................  ................
        92-D-140 F&H canyon exhaust upgrades Savannah                                                           
         River, SC........................................  ................            3,667             3,667 
        92-D-172 Hazardous waste treatment and processing                                                       
         facility, Pantex Plant...........................            5,000   ................  ................
        86-D-103 Decontamination and waste treatment                                                            
         facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA....................           11,250             4,752             4,752 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction..........................          106,157           199,163           199,163 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, Site/project completion..................          969,949         1,047,253         1,047,253 
                                                           =====================================================
Post 2006 completion:                                                                                           
    Operation and maintenance.............................        2,297,764         2,194,107         2,247,107 
    Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution..............          388,000           398,088           398,088 
    Construction:                                                                                               
        99-D-403 Privatization phase I infrastrucure                                                            
         support, Richland, WA............................  ................           14,800            14,800 
        97-D-402 Tank farm restoration and safe                                                                 
         operations, Richland, WA.........................           13,961            22,723            22,723 
        96-D-408 Waste management upgrades, Richland, WA..  ................              171               171 
        95-D-402 Install permanent electrical service,                                                          
         WIPP, AL.........................................              176   ................  ................
        95-D-405 Industrial landfill V and construction/                                                        
         demolition landfill VII, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge,                                                        
         TN...............................................            3,800   ................  ................
        95-D-407 219-S Secondary containment upgrade,                                                           
         Richland, WA.....................................            2,500   ................  ................
        95-E-600 Hazardous materials training center,                                                           
         Richland, WA.....................................  ................  ................  ................
        94-D-404 Melton Valley storage tank capacity                                                            
         increase, ORNL...................................            1,219   ................  ................
        94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems, Richland,                                                      
         WA...............................................           15,100            32,860            32,860 
        93-D-182 Replacement of cross-site transfer                                                             
         system, Richland, WA.............................  ................  ................  ................
        93-D-187 High-level waste removal from filled                                                           
         waste tanks, Savannah River, SC..................           17,520            10,702            10,702 
        89-D-174 Replacement high level waste evaporator,                                                       
         Savannah River, SC...............................            1,042   ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction..........................           55,318            81,256            81,256 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Total, Post 2006 completion.....................        2,741,082         2,673,451         2,726,451 
                                                           =====================================================
Site closures.............................................          105,085   ................  ................
Science and technology....................................          274,322           193,000           222,500 
Program direction.........................................          345,000           346,199           346,199 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense environmental management..........        4,435,438         4,259,903         4,342,403 
                                                           =====================================================
Savannah river pension refund.............................  ................  ................  ................
Use of prior year balances................................           -6,000   ................          -20,000 
General reduction.........................................          -50,000   ................          -29,000 
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND WASTE MGMT..        4,379,438         4,259,903         4,293,403 
                                                           =====================================================
            DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS                                                                 
                                                                                                                
Closure projects..........................................          890,800         1,006,240         1,048,240 
                                                                                                                
      DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION                                                            
                                                                                                                
Privatization initiatives, various locations..............          200,000           516,857           241,857 
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.............        5,470,238         5,783,000         5,583,500 
                                                           =====================================================
                 OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES                                                                       
                                                                                                                
Other national security programs:                                                                               
    Nonproliferation and national security:                                                                     
        Verification and control technology:                                                                    
            Nonproliferation and verification, R&D........          210,000           210,000           210,000 
            Arms control..................................          234,600           256,900           256,900 
            Intelligence..................................           33,600            33,600            43,600 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Verification and control                                                                
               technology.................................          478,200           500,500           510,500 
        Emergency management..............................           20,000            23,700            23,700 
        Nuclear safeguards and security...................           47,200            53,200            53,200 
        Security investigations...........................           30,000            30,000            30,000 
        Program direction--NN.............................           82,900            88,900            88,900 
        Use of prior year balances........................  ................  ................          -10,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Nonproliferation and national security          658,300           696,300           696,300 
    Environment, safety and health (Defense)..............           74,000            69,231            64,231 
        Program direction--EH.............................           20,000             4,769            24,769 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense)           94,000            74,000            89,000 
    Worker and community transition.......................           57,659            41,000            36,000 
        Program direction--WT.............................            3,500             4,000             4,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Worker and community transition.......           61,159            45,000            40,000 
    Fissile materials disposition.........................           99,451           111,372           111,372 
        Program direction--MD.............................            4,345             4,588             4,588 
        Construction:                                                                                           
            99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion                                                             
             Facility, Various locations..................  ................           25,000            25,000 
            99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication                                                               
             facility, Various locations..................  ................           28,000            28,000 
            97-D-140 Consolidated special nuclear                                                               
             materials storage plant, site TBD............  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction......................  ................           53,000            53,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition.....          103,796           168,960           168,960 
    Nuclear energy (Defense):                                                                                   
        Nuclear technology research and development:                                                            
         Electrometallurgical program.....................           12,000   ................  ................
        International nuclear safety: Soviet designed                                                           
         reactors.........................................           35,000            35,000            35,000 
        Russian plutonium reactor core conversion.........  ................  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Nuclear energy (Defense)..............           47,000            35,000            35,000 
    Adminstrative support for defense activities..........  ................  ................  ................
    Office of Hearings and Appeals........................            2,300             2,400             2,400 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Other national security programs.............          966,555         1,021,660         1,031,660 
                                                           =====================================================
Independent assessment of DOE projects....................           35,000   ................  ................
Naval reactors:                                                                                                 
    Naval reactors development............................          635,920           623,600           623,600 
        Construction:                                                                                           
            GPN-101 General plant projects, various                                                             
             locations....................................  ................            9,000             9,000 
            98-D-200 Site laboratory facility upgrade,                                                          
             various locations............................            5,700             7,000             7,000 
            97-D-201 Advanced test reactor secondary                                                            
             coolant system refurbishment, INEL, ID.......            4,600   ................  ................
            95-D-200 Laboratory systems and hot cell                                                            
             upgrades, various locations..................            1,100   ................  ................
            95-D-201 Advanced test reactor radioactive                                                          
             waste system upgrades, Idaho National                                                              
             Engineering Laboratory, ID...................  ................  ................  ................
            90-N-102 Expended core facility dry cell                                                            
             project, Naval Reactors Facility, ID.........            3,100             5,800             5,800 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction......................           14,500            12,800            12,800 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Naval reactors development........          650,420           645,400           645,400 
    Program direction.....................................           20,080            20,100            20,100 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Naval reactors...............................          670,500           665,500           665,500 
                                                           =====================================================
      Subtotal, Other defense activities..................        1,672,055         1,687,160         1,697,160 
                                                           =====================================================
Use of prior year balances................................           -6,047   ................          -19,000 
Offset to user organizations..............................  ................          -20,000           -20,000 
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.....................        1,666,008         1,667,160         1,658,160 
                                                           =====================================================
              DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL                                                                    
                                                                                                                
Defense nuclear waste disposal............................          190,000           190,000           185,000 
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.............       11,472,938        12,140,160        11,872,360 
                                                           =====================================================
              POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS                                                                   
                                                                                                                
                ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION                                                                     
                                                                                                                
Operation and maintenance/program direction...............            3,500   ................  ................
Capital assets acquisition................................           10,000   ................            5,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION..................           13,500   ................            5,000 
                                                           =====================================================
             SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION                                                                  
                                                                                                                
Operation and maintenance:                                                                                      
    Operation and maintenance/program direction...........            4,313             4,370             4,370 
    Purchase power and wheeling...........................           11,909             6,130             6,130 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.................           16,222            10,500            10,500 
Use of prior year balances................................           -4,000            -2,000            -2,000 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION............           12,222             8,500             8,500 
                                                           =====================================================
             SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION                                                                  
                                                                                                                
Operation and maintenance:                                                                                      
    Operating expenses....................................            2,382             2,722             2,722 
    Purchase power and wheeling...........................               57                59                59 
    Program direction.....................................           17,309            16,402            16,402 
    Construction..........................................            6,752             6,817             6,817 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.................           26,500            26,000            26,000 
Use of prior year balances................................           -1,290   ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION............           25,210            26,000            26,000 
                                                           =====================================================
             WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION                                                                  
                                                                                                                
Operation and maintenance:                                                                                      
    Construction and rehabilitation.......................           24,243            20,802            20,802 
    System operation and maintenance......................           39,246            36,469            36,469 
    Purchase power and wheeling...........................           54,886            53,886            53,886 
    Program direction.....................................          106,157           107,383           107,383 
    Utah mitigation and conservation......................            5,432             5,036             5,036 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.................          229,964           223,576           223,576 
Use of prior year balances................................          -40,921            -8,141            -8,141 
Transfer of authority from Department of Interior.........           (5,592)  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION............          189,043           215,435           215,435 
                                                           =====================================================
     FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND                                                          
                                                                                                                
Operation and maintenance.................................              970             1,010             1,010 
                                                           =====================================================
      TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS..............          240,945           250,945           255,945 
                                                           =====================================================
           FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION                                                                 
                                                                                                                
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission......................          162,141           168,898           168,898 
Use of prior year balances (FERC).........................  ................  ................  ................
FERC revenues.............................................         -162,141          -196,958          -168,898 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION.........  ................          -28,060   ................
                                                           =====================================================
                                                                                                                
                NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL FUND                                                                     
                                                                                                                
Discretionary funding.....................................          160,000           129,511           129,511 
Program direction.........................................  ................           60,489            60,489 
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund..................          160,000           190,000           190,000 
                                                           =====================================================
      GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY...................       15,848,574        17,042,305        16,473,910 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $170,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      67,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      67,000,000

    The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed 
of the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal 
cochairman who is appointed by the President.
    The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional 
Commission totals $67,000,000, which is the same as the current 
fiscal year.
    Consistent with the administration's budget request, the 
Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC 
highways. Funding for ARC development highways will be provided 
through the highway trust fund beginning in fiscal year 1999 
through 2004 consistent with provision contained in the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.

                           Denali Commission

Appropriations, 1998....................................................
Budget estimate, 1999...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $20,000,000

    In title VI, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$20,000,000 for the Denali Commission. Historically, the United 
States has promoted economic development in regions with 
requirements that now only exist in Alaska. The recommendation 
includes language authorizing the creation of the Denali 
Commission to address special infrastructure, utilities, and 
economic development problems, and to establish a framework for 
joint Federal and State efforts to promote economic self-
sufficiency.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      17,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,500,000

    An appropriation of $17,500,000 is recommended for fiscal 
year 1999. This is the same as the budget request.
    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by 
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The 
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's 
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for 
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the 
standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and 
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department 
of Energy.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $468,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     483,340,000
Committee recommendation................................     466,000,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 1998....................................    $450,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     152,341,000
Committee recommendation................................     416,000,000

                           net appropriation

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $18,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................     330,999,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,000,000

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been subject to six 
major reviews since 1979; the Kemeny report in 1979, the 
Rogovin report in 1980, regulatory impact surveys in 1981 and 
1989, the National Academy of Sciences in 1992, and the 
regulatory review task force in 1994. The reviews contain 
common criticisms, among them; the NRC's approach to regulation 
is punitive rather than performance based, licensees are forced 
to expend considerable resources on regulations that are not 
related to safety, the NRC is unnecessarily prescriptive, 
licensees fear retribution for criticism, there are no specific 
criteria for important NRC actions such as placing a reactor on 
the watch list, and the NRC focus on paper compliance is not 
related to and can distract from safety activities. The 
Committee is concerned that the NRC has done little to respond 
to these reviews and believes that a major review should be 
undertaken to improve the efficiency of the NRC and the manner 
in which it oversees public health and safety.
    In recent years, the safety performance of U.S. nuclear 
powerplants has significantly improved. Since 1991, the number 
of significant events has decreased in excess of 70 percent, 
safety systems unavailability has decreased in excess of 60 
percent, scrams while critical have decreased 50 percent, and 
collective radiation exposure has decreased 35 percent. Despite 
these improvements, in the last 3 years, the NRC has 
dramatically increased its imposition of civil fines (25 in 
1995, 50 in 1996, and 71 in 1997) and level four (the least 
severe) violations (567 in 1995, 905 in 1996, and 1427 in 
1997).
    The Committee believes that the increased issuance of fines 
and violations is not a reflection on the safety of the nuclear 
utility industry; it is the result of a change in regulatory 
culture at the NRC that defies the achieved improvement in 
safety that is quantified by the reduced number of significant 
events, safety system unavailability, scrams while critical, 
and collective radiation exposure doses among other metrics.
    The result is an amplification of the criticisms identified 
in previous reviews. The NRC has launched a review of nuclear 
plant design baselines which requires exhaustive review of 
design calculations, electrical separation, 50.59 safety 
evaluations, accident analysis documentation, historical plant 
operating records, and steps taken to implement NRC generic 
letters. Tremendous costs have been imposed upon reactor 
operators, and significant deficiencies have been found at only 
a few reactors. More important, the NRC's new interpretation of 
what constitutes design base information is creating 
uncertainty as to what the NRC expects of reactor operators.
    The NRC frequently imposes regulatory requirements using 
informal approaches that circumvent legal requirements for 
imposing regulatory requirements, including the Administrative 
Procedures Act. Those informal practices include: 
implementation of the systematic assessment of licensee 
performance process, determining which plants should be added 
to the watch list, generic communications that reactor 
operators feel obligated to follow, the use of diagnostic 
evaluation teams, and the practice of NRC staff providing 
guidance to reactor operators on what should be included in an 
operator's confirmatory action letters.
    The Committee believes these informal practices have gained 
in influence in recent years as a result of two phenomena; the 
continuing inconsistency of regional offices, and the 
increasing willingness of the NRC to regulate the management as 
well as safety of plants; even going so far as to require NRC 
approval of certain personnel changes at plants.
    NRC regulations are suppose to be developed through formal 
rulemaking processes conducted in accordance with the 
Administrative Procedures Act and should be consistent with the 
backfit rule. The backfit rule requires that new 
interpretations of existing regulations or the imposition of 
new regulations first be subject to review under 10 CFR 50.109 
to determine if the new interpretation or new regulation is 
necessary to preserve adequate protection or to bring a plant 
into compliance with regulations. If the NRC cannot demonstrate 
that a backfit is necessary to meet either of those 
requirements, under NRC regulations, backfits should not be 
imposed unless a cost-benefit backfit analysis demonstrates 
that such an action will result in substantial increase in 
safety to the public and be cost beneficial. Concerns have been 
raised to the Committee that informal practices outlined above 
fail to meet these backfit requirements.
    The Committee is aware of concerns that the NRC may have 
inappropriately expanded the scope of its reviews. 
Specifically, it has been suggested that the NRC's regulation 
of the below-ground aspects of uranium recovery operations that 
utilize in situ (that is, solution mining) extraction 
techniques unnecessarily duplicate adequate regulation by other 
Federal and State authorities. It has also been suggested that 
the NRC is inappropriately interpreting the Atomic Energy Act 
and Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Act to limit the use of 
existing mill tailings impoundments for the deposition of 
materials that are chemically, physically, and radiologically 
indistinguishable from uranium mill tailings. The Committee 
will work with the relevant congressional authorizing 
committee's to ensure that appropriations are not provided to 
the NRC to incorrectly implement those acts.
    The Committee is aware that the NRC imposes an economic 
feasibility requirement on some applicants to the Commission. 
Within 180 days of enactment of this act, the NRC should 
provide to the Appropriations and relevant authorizing 
committees of the House and Senate a summary of the cases in 
which the NRC considered the economic feasibility of 
applicants' proposals, the length of time required by the NRC 
to dispose of those cases, and the final disposition of each of 
those cases.
    The Committee supports the move to risk-informed, 
performance-based regulation. Risk informed requires the 
recognition that all activities entail risk; it can be limited 
but not eliminated, and that the reasonableness notion 
incorporated in the as low as reasonably achievable concept can 
be quantified and should not be exceeded by regulatory 
requirements. The Committee supports efforts to define 
frequently used terms such as ``safety-significant'' and 
``important to safety.'' Current nuclear powerplants may have 
10,000 to 20,000 components classified as safety related or 
important to safety, but reviews indicate that up to 80 percent 
of these items have low safety significance. The Committee 
supports a graded safety value scale that enables reactor 
operators to better apply resources and procedures to 
components of greatest safety significance.
    Numerous reviews, including those cited above, recommend 
the NRC review existing regulations to reform those that are 
outdated, paperwork oriented, or that consume resources needed 
to comply with regulations but that do not add to safety or 
that obscure actual safety issues. In 1985, the NRC's 
Regulations Marginal to Safety Program offered promise in this 
regard. Unfortunately, that review, which identified in excess 
of 20 regulations as marginal to safety, resulted in changes to 
only one major regulation. The Committee supports the 
resumption of that effort.
    The Committee is concerned that an inappropriately large 
portion of the funds appropriated to the NRC are used to 
support an interminable adjudicatory process imposed by the 
atomic safety and licensing boards. Even though the majority of 
the NRC's budget is reimbursed to the Federal Treasury through 
fees imposed upon licensees, the Committee has an obligation to 
ensure that appropriated funds are spent wisely. The Committee 
supports previous efforts by the Commission to streamline its 
adjudicatory process, in particular the abolition of the 
appeals panel in 1991.
    The Committee welcomes efforts by the relevant 
congressional authorizing committees to review the exorbitant 
and unpredictable time required to consider applications (even 
simply to write decisions once they are made), the broad 
discretion provided to judges to give standing, and the effort 
required to resolve issues no matter how trivial and unrelated 
to safety; such as personnel and economic viability issues 
addressed above. Within 180 days of enactment of this act, the 
NRC should provide a report to the Appropriations and relevant 
authorizing committees of the House and Senate on the amount of 
appropriated funds in fiscal years 1990-98 expended by and in 
support of atomic licensing and safety boards.
    The Committee recommendation includes authority for the NRC 
to collect annual charges not to exceed a total of $416,000,000 
from licensees in fiscal year 1999. The Committee recommends 
$17,000,000 be made available to the NRC from the nuclear waste 
fund. An additional $33,000,000, that will not be reimbursed 
through user fees, is provided for: agreement State oversight, 
international activities, generic decommissioning and 
reclamation activities, the site decommissioning management 
program, regulatory support to agreement States, the small 
entities program, support to nonprofit educational 
institutions, and other Federal agency programs.
    The Committee directs the NRC to provide a monthly report 
on the status of its licensing and regulatory duties. The 
Committee recommends the NRC use the same format used in the 
so-called Bevill reports previously provided to the Committee.
    The Committee recommendation includes a single year 
extension of the NRC's user fee collection authority. The 
Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, 
requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recover 100 
percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from 
the nuclear waste fund, by assessing licenses and annual fees. 
That authority expires in fiscal year 1998, and unless 
additional fee collection authority is enacted prior or 
concurrent to enactment of this act, the NRC's authority to 
collect user fees would be limited to 33 percent of its budget. 
The Committee is aware that the Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee recently reported legislation (S. 2090) to 
extend this authority for 5 years and intends that the 1-year 
extension included in this measure serve as a safeguard should 
that measure not be enacted by September 1, 1998.

                      Office of Inspector General

                          gross appropriation

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $4,800,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       5,300,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,800,000

                                revenues

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $4,800,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       1,749,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,800,000

    This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector 
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000 for fiscal year 1998.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Appropriations, 1998....................................      $2,600,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................       2,950,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,600,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,600,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste 
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed the Board to evaluate 
the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board must report its findings not less than two times a year 
to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority

Appropriations, 1998....................................     $70,000,000
Budget estimate, 1999...................................      76,800,000
Committee recommendation................................      70,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,000,000 
for the Tennessee Valley Authority.
    In the budget for fiscal year 1998 for the Tennessee Valley 
Authority, the administration contemplated the elimination of 
Federal funding for the agency's appropriated programs in 
fiscal year 1999. It was felt that such action would allow TVA 
to focus more on generating low-cost, dependable electricity.
    Although the conference on the Energy and Water Development 
Act for 1998 proposed that nonpower programs would be funded 
from other sources beginning in fiscal year 1999 as the 
administration requested, several issues including equity 
remain unresolved. Therefore, the Committee has recommended an 
appropriation of $70,000,000, the same as the amount 
appropriated for the current year, be provided for fiscal year 
1999.
    No funding is provided for construction of the new 
replacement Chickamauga Lock. The Committee understands that 
studies have indicated measures may be available which could 
delay the need to provide a replacement facility. TVA is 
directed to use $6,900,000 of unobligated carryover balances to 
continue to operate and maintain Land Between the Lakes 
National Recreation Area in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee is concerned about the failure of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority to comply with provisions contained 
in the statement of managers accompanying the Fiscal Year 1998 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act which directed 
TVA to relocate power lines and assist with the environmental 
impact statements associated with the construction of the lake 
in Union County, MS. The Committee expects TVA to comply with 
these provisions and to report to the Committee 45 days after 
enactment of this legislation on the status of its work.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

  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 recommended appropriations in title III, Department of 
Energy, generally are subject to annual authorization. However, 
the Congress has not enacted an annual Department of Energy 
authorization bill for several years, with the exception of the 
programs funded within the atomic energy defense activities 
which are authorized in annual defense authorization acts. The 
authorization for the atomic energy defense activities, 
contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 
Year 1998, is currently being considered by the Senate.
    Also, contained in title III, Department of Energy, in 
connection with the appropriation under the heading ``Nuclear 
Waste Disposal Fund,'' the recommended item of appropriation is 
brought to the attention of the Senate.
    In title IV, independent agencies, the recommended 
appropriation for the Appalachian Regional Commission is 
$67,000,000.

                      TITLE VI--DENALI COMMISSION

    In title VI, the Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$20,000,000 for the Denali Commission.

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee 
ordered reported en bloc, S. 2138, an original Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill, 1999, S. 2132, an original DOD 
appropriations bill, 1999, and S. 2137, an original Legislative 
Branch appropriations bill, 1999, each subject to amendment and 
each subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 
27-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mr. Faircloth
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Bumpers
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Boxer

 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.

    United States Enrichment Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-5(h))

Sec. 3107 Maintenance of security at the gaseous diffusion plants.

    (h) Maintenance of Security.--
          (1) In general.--With respect to the Paducah Gaseous 
        Diffusion Plant, Kentucky, and the Portsmouth Gaseous 
        Diffusion Plant, Ohio, the guidelines relating to the 
        authority of the Department of Energy's contractors 
        (including any Federal agency, or private entity 
        operating a gaseous diffusion plant under a contract or 
        lease with the Department of Energy) and any 
        subcontractor (at any tier) to carry firearms and make 
        arrests in providing security at Federal installations, 
        issued under section 161k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 
        1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201k.) shall require, at a minimum, 
        the presence of [an adequate number of] all security 
        guards carrying sidearms at all times to ensure 
        maintenance of security at the gaseous diffusion plants 
        (whether a gaseous diffusion plant is operated directly 
        by a Federal agency or by a private entity under a 
        contract or lease with a Federal agency).
          (2) Funding.--The Secretary of Energy shall reimburse 
        a contractor or subcontractor for the costs of 
        providing security to a gaseous diffusion plant as 
        required to comply with the guidelines referred to in 
        paragraph (1).

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL                                            
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS  
                                                     AMENDED                                                    
                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays        
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations                                                    
 to its subcommittees of amounts for 1999: Subcommittee on                                                      
 Energy and Water Development:                                                                                  
    Defense discretionary...................................       12,030       12,030       11,820   \1\ 18,818
    Nondefense discretionary................................        9,047        8,912        8,900        8,900
    Violent crime reduction fund............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Mandatory...............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:                                                      
    1999....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 13,607
    2000....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        6,503
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,184
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........           83
    2003 and future year....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          132
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 1999                                                    
 in bill....................................................           NA  ...........           NA           16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.                                                          
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.                                                          
                                                                                                                
NA: Not applicable.                                                                                             


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL 
                                                                        YEAR 1999                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Senate Committee recommendation  
                                                                                                                           compared with (+ or -)       
                           Item                                   1998         Budget estimate       Committee     -------------------------------------
                                                             appropriation                         recommendation          1998                         
                                                                                                                      appropriation     Budget estimate 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
          TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
                Corps of Engineers--Civil                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
General investigations...................................      $156,804,000       $150,000,000       $165,390,000        +$8,586,000       +$15,390,000 
Construction, general....................................     1,473,373,000        784,000,000      1,248,068,000       -225,305,000       +464,068,000 
Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries,                                                                                                       
 Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,                                                                                                  
 Missouri, and Tennessee.................................       296,212,000        280,000,000        313,234,000        +17,022,000        +33,234,000 
Operation and maintenance, general.......................     1,740,025,000      1,603,000,000      1,667,572,000        -72,453,000        +64,572,000 
    Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-174)........       105,185,000   .................  .................      -105,185,000   .................
Regulatory program.......................................       106,000,000        117,000,000        106,000,000   .................       -11,000,000 
Flood control and coastal emergencies....................         4,000,000   .................  .................        -4,000,000   .................
Formerly utilized sites remedial action program..........       140,000,000   .................  .................      -140,000,000   .................
    Defense function.....................................  .................       140,000,000        140,000,000       +140,000,000   .................
General expenses.........................................       148,000,000        148,000,000        148,000,000   .................  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil.......     4,169,599,000      3,222,000,000      3,788,264,000       -381,335,000       +566,264,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
         Central Utah Project Completion Account                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
Central Utah project construction........................        23,743,000         22,189,000         28,189,000         +4,446,000         +6,000,000 
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and                                                                                                           
 conservation............................................        11,610,000         12,476,000         10,476,000         -1,134,000         -2,000,000 
Utah reclamation mitigation and conservation account.....         5,000,000          5,000,000          5,000,000   .................  .................
Program oversight and administration.....................           800,000          1,283,000          1,283,000           +483,000   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Central Utah project completion account.....        41,153,000         40,948,000         44,948,000         +3,795,000         +4,000,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
                  Bureau of Reclamation                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Water and related resources..............................       694,348,000        640,124,000        672,119,000        -22,229,000        +31,995,000 
    Emergency appropriations (Public Law 105-174)........         4,520,000   .................  .................        -4,520,000   .................
California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration...............        85,000,000        143,300,000         65,000,000        -20,000,000        -78,300,000 
Loan program.............................................        10,425,000         12,425,000         12,425,000         +2,000,000   .................
    (Limitation on direct loans).........................       (31,000,000)       (38,000,000)       (38,000,000)       (+7,000,000)  .................
Policy and administration................................        47,558,000         48,000,000         48,000,000           +442,000   .................
Colorado River Dam fund (by transfer, permanent                                                                                                         
 authority)..............................................       (-5,592,000)  .................  .................       (+5,592,000)  .................
Central Valley project restoration fund..................        33,130,000         49,500,000         39,500,000         +6,370,000        -10,000,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Bureau of Reclamation.......................       874,981,000        893,349,000        837,044,000        -37,937,000        -56,305,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of the Interior........       916,134,000        934,297,000        881,992,000        -34,142,000        -52,305,000 
          (By transfer)..................................       (-5,592,000)  .................  .................       (+5,592,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
             TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Energy supply............................................       906,807,000      1,129,042,000        699,836,000       -206,971,000       -429,206,000 
Non-defense environmental management.....................       497,059,000        462,000,000        456,700,000        -40,359,000         -5,300,000 
Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning                                                                                                  
 fund....................................................       220,200,000        277,000,000        200,000,000        -20,200,000        -77,000,000 
Science..................................................     2,235,708,000      2,482,460,000      2,669,560,000       +433,852,000       +187,100,000 
Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund..............................       160,000,000        190,000,000        190,000,000        +30,000,000   .................
Departmental administration..............................       224,155,000        245,788,000        238,539,000        +14,384,000         -7,249,000 
    Miscellaneous revenues...............................      -136,738,000       -136,530,000       -136,530,000           +208,000   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net appropriation..................................        87,417,000        109,258,000        102,009,000        +14,592,000         -7,249,000 
Office of the Inspector General..........................        27,500,000         29,500,000         27,500,000   .................        -2,000,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Environmental restoration and waste management:                                                                                                         
    Defense function.....................................    (5,520,238,000)  .................  .................   (-5,520,238,000)  .................
    Non-defense function.................................      (717,259,000)  .................  .................     (-717,259,000)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................................    (6,237,497,000)  .................  .................   (-6,237,497,000)  .................
                                                                                                                                                        
             Atomic Energy Defense Activities                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
Weapons activities.......................................     4,146,692,000      4,500,000,000      4,445,700,000       +299,008,000        -54,300,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Defense environmental restoration and waste management...     4,429,438,000      4,259,903,000      4,293,403,000       -136,035,000        +33,500,000 
Defense facilities closure projects......................       890,800,000      1,006,240,000      1,048,240,000       +157,440,000        +42,000,000 
Defense environmental management privatization...........       200,000,000        516,857,000        241,857,000        +41,857,000       -275,000,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense environmental management.........     5,520,238,000      5,783,000,000      5,583,500,000        +63,262,000       -199,500,000 
Other defense activities.................................     1,666,008,000      1,667,160,000      1,658,160,000         -7,848,000         -9,000,000 
Defense nuclear waste disposal...........................       190,000,000        190,000,000        185,000,000         -5,000,000         -5,000,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............    11,522,938,000     12,140,160,000     11,872,360,000       +349,422,000       -267,800,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
             Power Marketing Administrations                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Operation and maintenance, Alaska Power Administration...         3,500,000   .................  .................        -3,500,000   .................
    Capital assets acquisition...........................        10,000,000   .................         5,000,000         -5,000,000         +5,000,000 
Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power                                                                                                           
 Administration..........................................        12,222,000          8,500,000          8,500,000         -3,722,000   .................
Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power                                                                                                           
 Administration..........................................        25,210,000         26,000,000         26,000,000           +790,000   .................
Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance,                                                                                                
 Western Area Power Administration.......................       189,043,000        215,435,000        215,435,000        +26,392,000   .................
    (By transfer, permanent authority)...................        (5,592,000)  .................  .................       (-5,592,000)  .................
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund........           970,000          1,010,000          1,010,000            +40,000   .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Power Marketing Administrations.............       240,945,000        250,945,000        255,945,000        +15,000,000         +5,000,000 
                                                                                                                                                        
           Federal Energy Regulatory Commission                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
Salaries and expenses....................................       162,141,000        168,898,000        168,898,000         +6,757,000   .................
    Revenues applied.....................................      -162,141,000       -168,898,000       -168,898,000         -6,757,000   .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title III, Department of Energy.............    15,898,574,000     17,070,365,000     16,473,910,000       +575,336,000       -596,455,000 
          (By transfer)..................................        (5,592,000)  .................  .................       (-5,592,000)  .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
              TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Appalachian Regional Commission..........................       170,000,000         67,000,000         67,000,000       -103,000,000   .................
Denali Commission........................................  .................  .................        20,000,000        +20,000,000        +20,000,000 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board..................        17,000,000         17,500,000         17,500,000           +500,000   .................
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:                                                                                                                          
    Salaries and expenses................................       468,000,000        483,340,000        466,000,000         -2,000,000        -17,340,000 
    Revenues.............................................      -450,000,000       -152,341,000       -416,000,000        +34,000,000       -263,659,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................        18,000,000        330,999,000         50,000,000        +32,000,000       -280,999,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
    Office of Inspector General..........................         4,800,000          5,300,000          4,800,000   .................          -500,000 
    Revenues.............................................        -4,800,000         -1,749,000         -4,800,000   .................        -3,051,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................  .................         3,551,000   .................  .................        -3,551,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................................        18,000,000        334,550,000         50,000,000        +32,000,000       -284,550,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.....................         2,600,000          2,950,000          2,600,000   .................          -350,000 
Tennessee Valley Authority: Tennessee Valley Authority                                                                                                  
 Fund....................................................        70,000,000         76,800,000         70,000,000   .................        -6,800,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Total, title IV, Independent agencies..............       277,600,000        498,800,000        227,100,000        -50,500,000       -271,700,000 
                                                          ==============================================================================================
      Grand total:                                                                                                                                      
          New budget (obligational) authority............    21,261,907,000     21,725,462,000     21,371,266,000       +109,359,000       -354,196,000 
              Appropriations.............................   (21,152,202,000)   (21,725,462,000)   (21,371,266,000)     (+219,064,000)     (-354,196,000)
              Emergency appropriations...................      (109,705,000)  .................  .................     (-109,705,000)  .................
          (By transfer)..................................  .................  .................  .................  .................  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



