[Senate Report 106-395]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 688
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-395

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



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 2001

                                _______
                                

                August 30, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

  Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of January 6, 1999

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4733]

    The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water 
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and 
for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.



Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2001

Budget estimates considered by Senate................... $23,153,068,000
Amount of bill as reported to the Senate................  22,918,441,000
The bill as reported to the Senate--
    Below the budget estimate, 2001.....................     234,627,000
    Over enacted bill, 2000.............................   1,271,394,000
                    ========================================================
                      __________________________________________________


                            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...................................    10
        Construction, general....................................    31
        Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries.........    51
        Operation and maintenance, general.......................    56
        Flood control and coastal emergencies....................    80
        Regulatory program.......................................    80
        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program..........    81
        General expenses.........................................    82

                                TITLE II

Department of the Interior:
    Central Utah project completion account......................    84
    Bureau of Reclamation: Water and related resources...........    84
    Bureau of Reclamation loan program account...................    96
    Central Valley project restoration fund......................    99
    California bay-delta ecosystem restoration...................    99
    Policy and administrative expenses...........................   100

                               TITLE III

Department of Energy:
    Energy Supply................................................   102
        Renewable energy resources...............................   102
        Nuclear energy programs..................................   106
        Environment, safety, and health..........................   110
        Energy support activities................................   110
    Environmental management (nondefense)........................   110
    Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund..   111
    Nuclear waste fund...........................................   111
    Science......................................................   112
        High energy physics......................................   112
        Nuclear physics..........................................   112
        Biological and environmental research....................   113
        Basic energy sciences....................................   113
        Other energy research programs...........................   114
        Fusion energy sciences...................................   115
    Departmental administration..................................   115
        Miscellaneous revenues...................................   115
    Inspector General............................................   115
    Atomic energy defense activities:
        National Nuclear Security Administration:
            Weapon activities....................................   116
            Defense nuclear nonproliferation.....................   124
            Naval reactors.......................................   129
            Office of the Administrator..........................   129
        Other defense related activities:
            Defense environmental restoration and waste 
              management.........................................   130
            Defense facilities closure projects..................   134
            Defense environmental management privatization.......   134
            Other defense activities.............................   135
            Defense nuclear waste disposal.......................   139
    Power marketing administrations:
        Operations and maintenance, Southeastern Power 
          Administration.........................................   142
        Operations and maintenance, Southwestern Power 
          Administration.........................................   142
        Construction, rehabilitation, operations and maintenance, 
          Western Area Power Administration......................   142
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.........................   143
    General provisions...........................................   164

                                TITLE IV

Independent Agencies:
    Appalachian Regional Commission..............................   167
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board......................   167
    Delta Regional Authority.....................................   168
    Denali Commission............................................   168
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission................................   168
    Office of Inspector General..................................   169
    Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.........................   169

                                TITLE V

Fiscal year 2000 supplemental: Cerro Grande fire activities......   170

                                TITLE VI

Rescission.......................................................   171

                               TITLE VII

General provisions...............................................   172
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the 
  Senate.........................................................   173
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   174
Budgetary impact statement.......................................   181

                                Purpose

    The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2001 beginning October 1, 2000, and ending 
September 30, 2001, 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 of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration in title III; and for 
related independent agencies and commissions, including the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, Denali Commission, and the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The fiscal year 2001 budget estimates for the bill total 
$23,153,068,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The 
recommendation of the Committee totals $22,918,441,000. This is 
$234,627,000 below the budget estimates and $1,271,394,000 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 
$22,470,000,000 in budget authority and $22,229,000,000 in 
outlays for fiscal year 2001. The bill as recommended by the 
Committee is within the subcommittee allocation for fiscal year 
2001 in budget authority and outlays.

                            Bill Highlights

                    atomic energy defense activities

    The amount recommended in the bill includes $13,410,379,000 
for atomic energy defense activities. Major programs and 
activities include:

Weapon activities.......................................  $4,883,289,000
Defense nuclear nonproliferation........................     908,967,000
Naval reactors..........................................     694,600,000
Other defense activities................................     579,463,000
Defense waste management and environmental restoration..   4,635,763,000
Defense facilities closure projects.....................   1,082,297,000
Defense environmental privatization.....................     324,000,000

                             energy supply

    The bill recommended by the Committee provides a total of 
$691,520,000 for energy research programs including:

Renewable energy resources..............................    $444,117,000
Nuclear energy..........................................     262,084,000

                  nondefense environmental management

    An appropriation of $309,141,000 is recommended for 
nondefense environmental management activities of the 
Department of Energy.

                                science

    The Committee recommendation also provides a net 
appropriation of $2,870,112,000 for general science and 
research activities in life sciences, high energy physics, and 
nuclear physics. Major programs are:

High energy physics research............................    $677,030,000
Nuclear physics.........................................     350,274,000
Basic energy sciences...................................     914,582,000
Biological and environmental R&D........................     444,000,000
Fusion energy sciences..................................     227,270,000
Other energy research...................................     174,900,000

               regulatory and other independent agencies

    Also recommended in the bill is $162,700,000 for various 
regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government. 
Major programs include:

Appalachian Regional Commission.........................     $66,400,000
Delta Regional Authority................................      20,000,000
Denali Commission.......................................      30,000,000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission....................     175,200,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...........................     481,900,000

                      water resources development

Corps of Engineers:
    General investigations..............................    $139,219,000
    Construction........................................   1,361,449,000
    Flood control Mississippi River and tributaries.....     324,450,000
    FUSRAP..............................................     140,000,000
    Operations and maintenance..........................   1,862,471,000
    Corps of Engineers, regulatory activities...........     120,000,000
Bureau of Reclamation:
    California Bay-Delta restoration....................................
    Central Valley project restoration fund.............      38,382,000
    Water and related resource..........................     655,192,000
    Central Utah project completion.....................      39,940,000

    The Committee has recommended appropriations totaling 
approximately $4,892,696,000 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 1999, flood control projects 
prevented $21,200,000,000 in damages, and U.S. ports and 
harbors annually handle about $600,000,000,000 in international 
cargo generating over $14,500,000,000 in tax revenues, nearly 
$515,000,000,000 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 2001 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. Information, both for and 
against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The 
recommendations for fiscal year 2001 therefore, have been 
developed after careful consideration of available data.

                         votes in the committee

    By a vote of 28 to 0 the Committee on July 18, 2000, 
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the 
Senate.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              introduction

    The Committee recommendation for the Corps of Engineers 
totals $4,104,589,000. This is $40,889,000 above the budget 
request for fiscal year 2001, but is $21,971,000 below the 
appropriation for the current year.

                           budget constraints

    The budget allocation for non-Defense discretionary 
programs contained in the Energy and Water Development for 
fiscal year 2001 are severely constrained and require 
reductions of $625,000,000 below the budget request for fiscal 
year 2001. Faced with these budget realities, the Committee has 
had to make tough decisions and choices in the development of 
the Corps of Engineers budget request for fiscal year 2001. 
However, while the budget resources for non-Defense 
discretionary programs continue to decline, the number of 
requests of the subcommittee continue to increase. This year 
the Committee received nearly 1,000 requests for funding for 
water projects within the Corps' civil works program. Many 
supported the funding level in the budget request, but a 
majority of the requests made of the Committee sought increases 
over the budgeted amounts or new items not contained in the 
President's budget for fiscal year 2001.
    To compound pressures on the budget this year, the 
Committee was faced with the recently enacted Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (WRDA 99). That legislation authorized 
construction of many new projects, extended credit and 
reimbursement authorities, and significantly expanded new 
mission and responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers into 
areas which historically have been a State and local 
responsibility. The best example of this is the environmental 
and other infrastructure authorities which the Committee 
estimates will cost over $800,000,000. It should also be 
pointed out that the backlog of authorized but unfunded 
projects totals $45,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000.
    It is clear that, with the ever increasing level of 
authorized projects, the expansion of the Corps' areas of 
responsibility, and the continued reductions in non-Defense 
discretionary funding available to the Committee, the projects 
which the Committee is able to fund will have extended 
completion schedules and delayed benefits both to the local 
areas involved and to the Nation as a whole. These extended 
completion schedules and delayed benefits projected by the 
fiscal year 2001 budget are estimated at over $4,000,000,000 in 
benefits foregone and nearly $500,000,000 in increased project 
costs, a significant portion of which State and local sponsors 
will have to fund.
    The Committee is concerned about the Corps' incursion into 
non-traditional areas of responsibility and areas where the 
private sector has demonstrated capability and capacity to 
perform. Programs such as school modernization, while important 
and well intended, should be pursued only after careful review 
and consultation with the Congress, in full compliance with 
applicable procedures and regulations, and mindful of the 
private sector's capability to perform the work in question.
    Further, the Committee believes the Corps should not be 
unduly constrained in carrying out its traditional role in 
providing inherently governmental engineering and environmental 
services to other Federal agencies or in assisting States 
consistent with existing law.

                           management reforms

    Earlier this year, following unsubstantiated allegations by 
a Corps of Engineers' employee and several press stories, the 
Secretary of the Army announced a number of Civil Works program 
management reforms. The Committee feels that the efforts of the 
Department of the Army and the Executive Branch to consult with 
the Congress prior to implementing these significant reforms 
was totally inadequate. As the result of Congressional concern, 
the Secretary of the Army agreed to withhold implementation for 
a reasonable period of time to allow for consultation. As yet, 
there has been little or no substantive dialogue regarding the 
need for or the impact of the proposed reforms on the historic 
role of the Corps of Engineers in the development of 
professional, impartial recommendations related to water 
resource development projects.
    While the Committee does not take issue with the need for 
civilian oversight of the top Corps commanders, this oversight 
and management must not infringe on the responsibilities of the 
Corps, as a whole, to develop and finalize recommendations 
that, to the greatest extent possible, are balanced, 
representing the best solution possible to meet development 
needs and protect the environment. The Committee believes that 
a number of the reforms proposed by the Secretary of the Army 
fundamentally change the Corps' ability to provide such 
balance, and interject political or other considerations much 
earlier in the process thus jeopardizing the objectivity and 
balance which existing water resource development procedures 
require.
    Further, the Committee believes that the executive branch's 
insistence that reform of the Corps of Engineers be based 
solely on the findings of the Inspector General's investigation 
of allegations of misconduct, which addresses the allegations 
of a single individual, is too narrow in scope to be meaningful 
to the issue of management of the Corps as an organization. 
Other studies and investigations, such as the National Research 
Council study of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation 
Study, initiated by the Secretary of the Army; and an 
investigation by the House Appropriations Committee, will 
address basic, systemic issues of the Corps management process. 
The Committee feels it important to have the results of these 
reviews before making conclusions as to what reforms should to 
be instituted.
    Finally, the Committee has not proceeded with legislative 
language which would prohibit reform of the Corps management 
structure with the expectation that the Executive Branch would 
engage the Congress in a meaningful dialogue as to what reforms 
should be instituted in the near term. However, there are 
indications that the Secretary of the Army and elements of the 
Executive Branch still plan to proceed with the original 
reforms irrespective of Congressional desires and views on the 
matter. The Committee has not included legislative language in 
this measure, but will reassess the need for such language as 
the process moves forward.

                   basis of committee recommendation

    Specifically, in development of the fiscal year 2001 
funding recommendation for the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee is not able to include any new construction starts, 
has recommended only a limited number of new study starts, and 
has had to reduce numerous funding levels below the amount 
requested in the budget in an effort to restore balance to the 
water resource program of the Corps, and to address high 
priority requests made to the Committee--all within a budget 
allocation for non-Defense discretionary program that is 
$625,000,000 below the budget request for fiscal year 2001. The 
limited resources available have been focused on on-going 
projects where the Corps has contractual commitments. While the 
Committee has not been able to fund projects at the optimum 
level, it has endeavored to provide sufficient funding on each 
project to mitigate delays and increased costs, to the greatest 
extent possible, across the entire Corps' civil works program.
    Finally, the Committee received numerous requests to 
include project authorizations in the energy and water 
development appropriations bill. In an effort to support and 
honor congressional authorizing committees jurisdiction, the 
Committee has not included new project authorizations.

                         general investigations

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $161,994,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     137,700,000
House allowance.........................................     153,327,000
Committee recommendation................................     139,219,000

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

                                                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Total                        Budget estimate              House allowance          Committee recommendation
Type of           Project title            Federal     Allocated  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
project                                      cost       to date    Investigations    Planning   Investigations    Planning   Investigations    Planning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   ALABAMA

    (N)ALABAMA RIVER BELOW CLAIBORNE         2,617          740            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        LOCK AND DAM, AL
  (FDP)BALDWIN COUNTY WATERSHEDS, AL           750          170            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
    (N)BAYOU LA BATRE, AL                      600          170            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (N)BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE          15,035          456            521   ...........            521   ...........            521   ...........
        RIVERS, AL
  (FDP)BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL            750          170             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
  (SPE)CAHABA RIVER WATERSHED, AL            1,150          150             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
       COOSA RIVER, AL                 ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          150  ..............  ...........
    (N)DOG RIVER, AL                         1,651          919            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
  (FDP)LUBBUB CREEK, AL                        600           86             50   ...........             50   ...........  ..............  ...........
       LUXAPALILA CREEK, LAMAR                 100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        COUNTY, AL
  (SPE)VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON              1,423          746            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
        COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED)

                   ALASKA

    (N)AKUTAN HARBOR, AK                       612          504            108   ...........            108   ...........            108   ...........
    (N)AKUTAN HARBOR, AK                     9,600  ...........  ..............          150  ..............          150  ..............          150
       ANCHOR POINT HARBOR, AK                 100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........             50   ...........
  (FDP)ANIAK, AK                               676          256             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
   (SP)BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE             600           86            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
        REDUCTION, AK
  (SPE)CHANDALAR RIVER WATERSHED,              500           86             50   ...........             50   ...........  ..............  ...........
        VENETIE INDIAN, AK
    (E)CHENA RIVER WATERSHED, AK               777          477             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
       CRAIG HARBOR, AK                        100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (N)DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK            1,850           70            422   ...........            422   ...........            700   ...........
    (N)DOUGLAS HARBOR EXPANSION, AK            316          207            109   ...........            109   ...........            109   ...........
    (N)DOUGLAS HARBOR EXPANSION, AK          4,000  ...........  ..............           50  ..............           50  ..............           50
    (N)FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK                 4,800  ...........  ..............          250  ..............          250  ..............          250
       FIRE ISLAND, AK                         100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (N)GASTINEAU CHANNEL                       500           86             50   ...........             50   ...........  ..............  ...........
        MODIFICATION, AK
       HAINES HARBOR, AK                       200  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
    (E)KENAI RIVER WATERSHED, AK               900          150             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
       KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK                    200  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
       KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK          200  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            150   ...........
    (E)MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK           900          100            100   ...........            100   ...........  ..............  ...........
       MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK                     100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)NAKNEK RIVER WATERSHED, AK              500          100             50   ...........             50   ...........  ..............  ...........
    (N)NAPASKIAK HARBOR, AK                    250  ...........             69   ...........             69   ...........  ..............  ...........
    (N)PERRYVILLE HARBOR, AK                   160           20            120   ...........            120   ...........            120   ...........
    (N)PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK                   400          229            107   ...........            107   ...........            107   ...........
    (N)QUINHAGAK HARBOR, AK                    290  ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........             50   ...........
       SAINT GEORGE HAROBR                     600  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        IMPROVEMENT, AK
    (E)SHIP CREEK WATERSHED, AK                474          319             53   ...........             53   ...........             53   ...........
       SITKA HARBOR, AK                        100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (N)SKAGWAY HARBOR MODIFICATION,            450           86            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
        AK
    (N)UNALAKLEET HARBOR, AK                   300  ...........             74   ...........             74   ...........             74   ...........
    (N)UNALASKA HARBOR, AK                     450          241            209   ...........            209   ...........            209   ...........
    (N)UNALASKA HARBOR, AK                   9,000  ...........  ..............           58  ..............           58  ..............           58
    (N)VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK             451          408             43   ...........             43   ...........             43   ...........
    (N)VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK             451  ...........  ..............          150  ..............          150  ..............          150
       WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK                 200  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            169   ...........

               AMERICAN SAMOA

    (N)TUTUILA HARBOR, AS                      400          125            275   ...........            275   ...........            275   ...........

                   ARIZONA

       COLONIAS ALONG THE U.S./MEXICO  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          260  ..............  ...........
        BORDER, AZ AND TX
  (FDP)GILA RIVER, NORTHEAST PHOENIX         1,985        1,723            212   ...........            212   ...........            212   ...........
        DRAINAGE AREA, AZ
  (SPE)LITTLE COLORADO RIVER, AZ             1,675          150            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (E)PIMA COUNTY, AZ                       1,100          100             75   ...........            175   ...........             75   ...........
    (E)RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ        1,100          150            290   ...........            290   ...........            290   ...........
   (FC)RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ           18,200          129  ..............          250  ..............          375  ..............          250
    (E)RIO SALADO ESTE, AZ                     800          100            175   ...........            175   ...........            175   ...........
    (E)RIO SALADO OESTE, AZ                    800          100            175   ...........            400   ...........            175   ...........
       SANTA CRUZ RIVER (GRANT RD. TO  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            300   ...........  ..............  ...........
        LOWELL RD.), AZ
    (E)SANTA CRUZ RIVER (PASEO DE LAS        1,350          338            100   ...........            335   ...........            100   ...........
        IGLESIAS), AZ
    (E)TRES RIOS, AZ                        55,250           43  ..............          250  ..............          500  ..............          250
   (FC)TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ             19,400          600  ..............          432  ..............          800  ..............          432

                  ARKANSAS

       ARKANSAS RIVER LEVEES, AR       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          400  ..............  ...........
    (N)ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION             5,800          919            753   ...........            753   ...........            753   ...........
        STUDY, AR AND OK
  (FDP)MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR              840          593            247   ...........            247   ...........            247   ...........
   (FC)NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK              19,500           25  ..............          200  ..............          200  ..............          500
        HOLLOW, AR
    (N)RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY,           2,800        2,182            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR
       SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR          ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            900   ...........  ..............  ...........
  (COM)WHITE RIVER BASIN                     2,000  ...........            500   ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
        COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO
    (N)WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION, AR      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            300   ...........  ..............  ...........
       WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOW                850  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            850   ...........
        STUDY, AR

                 CALIFORNIA

    (E)ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA              1,100           50             50   ...........            500   ...........             50   ...........
   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA        329,300       18,896  ..............        3,285  ..............        3,285  ..............        3,285
   (FC)ARROYO PASAJERO, CA                 159,600          100  ..............          500  ..............          500  ..............          500
    (E)BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM             11,250  ...........  ..............          300  ..............          300  ..............          300
        RESTORATION, CA
  (FDP)CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CA            1,000           75            175   ...........            175   ...........            175   ...........
       COAST OF CALIFORNIA STORM AND   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........  ..............  ...........
        TIDAL WAVE STUDY, CA
       HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          200  ..............  ...........
        RESTORATION, CA
       HUNTINGTON BEACH, BLUFFTOP      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            211   ...........  ..............  ...........
        PARK, CA
    (E)LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA              1,975          272            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
   (FC)LLAGAS CREEK, CA                     19,000          250  ..............          240  ..............          240  ..............          700
  (SPE)LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA                1,100           75            225   ...........            225   ...........            225   ...........
    (N)LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN         ...........  ...........  ..............          375  ..............          750  ..............          375
        CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA
   (FC)LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA              15,000          215  ..............          325  ..............          325  ..............          325
       MALIBU CREEK, CA                ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            400   ...........  ..............  ...........
       MARE ISLAND, CA                 ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          500  ..............  ...........
       MARINA DEL REY AND BALLONA      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........  ..............  ...........
        CREEK, CA
  (SPE)MATILIJA DAM, CA                      1,100           75            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
    (E)MIDDLE CREEK, CA                     16,250  ...........  ..............          160  ..............          160  ..............          160
  (SPE)MOJAVE RIVER FORKS DAM, CA            1,100          205            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
    (E)MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA                   600          186            250   ...........            250   ...........            900   ...........
    (E)MUGU LAGOON, CA                         700          262            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
   (FC)MURRIETA CREEK, CA                   19,500  ...........  ..............          300  ..............          750  ..............          300
  (FDP)N CA STREAMS, DRY CREEK,                400          129            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
        MIDDLETOWN, CA
    (E)N CA STREAMS, LOWER SACRAMENTO        1,970          821            237   ...........            237   ...........            237   ...........
        RVR RIPARIAN REVEGETATI
    (E)N CA STREAMS, MIDDLE CREEK, CA        1,095        1,005             90   ...........             90   ...........             90   ...........
    (E)N CA STREAMS, SUISUN MARSH, CA        1,100           60             65   ...........             65   ...........             65   ...........
    (E)NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH                1,806        1,219            300   ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
        RESTORATION, CA
    (E)NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED                 1,100          100             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
        MANAGEMENT, CA
  (FDP)NCS, LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO          1,970          745            300   ...........            500   ...........            300   ...........
        COUNTY, WOODLAND AND VIC,
    (E)NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA                9,750          120  ..............          350  ..............          350  ..............          350
       NEWPORT BAY (LA-3 SITE          ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            800   ...........  ..............  ...........
        DESIGNATION STUDY), CA
    (E)NEWPORT BAY/SAN DIEGO CREEK           1,220          332            381   ...........            381   ...........            381   ...........
        WATERSHED, CA
       ORANGE COUNTY COAST BEACH       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            475   ...........  ..............  ...........
        EROSION, CA
    (E)ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER        1,175          186            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
        BASIN, CA
   (FC)PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE,          9,300        3,494  ..............          600  ..............          600  ..............        1,200
        CA
    (E)PAJARO RIVER BASIN STUDY, CA          1,100          100             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
       PENINSULA BEACH (CITY OF LONG   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            250   ...........  ..............  ...........
        BEACH), CA
    (E)PINE FLAT DAM, FISH AND              16,250           86  ..............          300  ..............          300  ..............          300
        WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION,
    (N)PORT OF STOCKTON, CA                  1,350          125            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
  (FDP)POSO CREEK, CA                        1,050           62            150   ...........            500   ...........            150   ...........
   (FC)RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA              16,250          120  ..............          200  ..............          200  ..............          200
    (N)REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA               1,610          196            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
    (E)RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM               3,677          459            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        RESTORATION, CA
  (SPE)SACRAMENTO--SAN JOAQUIN DELTA,        5,940        5,366            300   ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
        CA
    (E)SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN           15,500        8,913          1,500   ...........          3,000   ...........          1,500   ...........
        COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY,
  (FDP)SAN ANTONIO CREEK, CA                   800           75            125   ...........            125   ...........            125   ...........
  (FDP)SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA               850          186            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
       SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            325   ...........  ..............  ...........
    (N)SAN DIEGO HARBOR, NATIONAL            1,600          143            125   ...........            125   ...........            125   ...........
        CITY, CA
    (N)SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA                 1,110          626            250   ...........            700   ...........            250   ...........
       SAN GABRIEL RIVER TO NEWPORT    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            150   ...........  ..............  ...........
        BAY, CA
  (FDP)SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA                 1,000           75            225   ...........            225   ...........            225   ...........
       SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, STOCKTON         9,750  ...........  ..............          150  ..............          150  ..............  ...........
        METRO AREA, FARMINGTON D
  (RCP)SAN JOAQUIN R BASIN, STOCKTON           804          704            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
        METRO AREA, FARMINGTON D
    (E)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN,              2,375          150            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
        CONSUMNES AND MOKELUMNE
        RIVERS,
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN,              1,100           60             65   ...........             65   ...........             65   ...........
        CORRAL HOLLOW CREEK, CA
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN,              1,100           60             65   ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
        FRAZIER CREEK, CA
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN,              1,611        1,431            180   ...........            180   ...........            180   ...........
        STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, C
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN,              1,600          125            150   ...........            300   ...........            150   ...........
        TUOLUMNE RIVER, CA
  (FDP)SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST           747          534            213   ...........            213   ...........            213   ...........
        STANISLAUS COUNTY, CA
    (E)SAN JUAN CREEK WATERSHED              1,470        1,420             50   ...........            200   ...........             50   ...........
        MANAGEMENT, CA
  (FDP)SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE          1,100           50             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
        COUNTY, CA
  (FDP)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA                     800           75            170   ...........            170   ...........            170   ...........
    (E)SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA           2,800          613            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
    (E)SANTA ROSA CREEK WATERSHED, CA        1,216          481            300   ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
       SOLANA BEACH, CA                ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            350   ...........  ..............  ...........
   (FC)SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY              46,100        1,379  ..............          200  ..............          200  ..............          200
        STREAMS, CA
       SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIAL     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........          1,882   ...........  ..............  ...........
        AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS, CA
  (FDP)STRONG AND CHICKEN RANCH                800          125            150   ...........            300   ...........            150   ...........
        SLOUGHS, CA
  (FDP)SUTTER BASIN, CA                      1,350          125            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
    (E)TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV                1,200          235            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
  (SPE)TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL           1,100          170            205   ...........            500   ...........            205   ...........
        RESTORATION, CA
   (FC)TULE RIVER, CA                       14,000          180  ..............          400  ..............          400  ..............          400
   (FC)UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA            55,000        1,541  ..............          500  ..............          500  ..............          500
  (FDP)UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA            1,845          661            300   ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER                 1,100          186            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
        WATERSHED, CA
    (N)VENTURA HARBOR SAND BYPASS, CA        1,300          362            400   ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........
  (FDP)WHITE RIVER AND DEER CREEK, CA        1,050           63            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
       WESTMINISTER, CA                        100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
       WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CA      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          500  ..............  ...........
   (FC)YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA                 22,200          200  ..............          400  ..............          400  ..............          400

                  COLORADO

  (RCP)CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND           1,350          510            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
        BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO
       FOUNTAIN CREEK AND                      100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        TRIBUTARIES, CO
       ZUNI AND SUN VALLEY REACHES,            100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO

        COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN
               MARIANA ISLANDS

    (N)NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, CNMI           100  ...........            100   ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                 CONNECTICUT

    (E)COASTAL CONNECTICUT ECOSYSTEM           357          242             80   ...........             80   ...........             80   ...........
        RESTORATION, CT

                  DELAWARE

    (N)C&D CANAL, BALTIMORE HBR CONN         3,750        3,650  ..............          100  ..............          100  ..............          100
        CHANNELS, DE AND MD (DEEPE
       DELAWARE COAST FROM BETHANY     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............           33  ..............  ...........
        BEACH TO SOUTH BETHANY, DE
       DELAWARE COASTLINE PROTECTION,          803  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            428   ...........
        DE AND NJ
       DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE,                 803          100  ..............  ...........  ..............          124  ..............  ...........
        ROOSEVELT INLET/LEWES BEACH,
        D
       DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE,         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          304  ..............  ...........
        BROADKILL BEACH, DE

                   FLORIDA

  (FDP)BISCAYNE BAY, FL                      3,420        1,572            543   ...........            543   ...........            543   ...........
  (FDP)HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, FL                  600           86            114   ...........            114   ...........            114   ...........
    (N)LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH            600           86            114   ...........            114   ...........            114   ...........
        COUNTY, FL
    (N)MILE POINT, FL                          600           86            114   ...........            114   ...........            114   ...........
    (N)PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL              932          772            160   ...........            160   ...........            160   ...........
  (FDP)WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, FL                 550           86            114   ...........            114   ...........            114   ...........

                   GEORGIA

  (FDP)ALLATOONA LAKE, ETOWAH RIVER,           525          279             90   ...........             90   ...........             90   ...........
        GA
    (E)ALLATOONA LAKE, LITTLE RIVER,           350          172             40   ...........             40   ...........             40   ...........
        GA
  (FDP)AUGUSTA, GA                           1,700          299            500   ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........
    (N)BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA                 35,957        2,276  ..............           50  ..............           50  ..............           50
    (E)INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT           1,100           86             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
        AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS,
    (E)LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS          1,100           86             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
        CREEKS, GA
  (FDP)LUBBUB CREEK, GA                        600           86             50   ...........  ..............  ...........             50   ...........
    (E)METRO ATLANTA WATERSHED, GA           2,230        1,731            499   ...........            499   ...........            499   ...........
    (E)SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM             1,690          430            450   ...........            450   ...........            450   ...........
        RESTORATION, GA
    (N)SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA       144,302          211  ..............          100  ..............          100  ..............          100
  (COM)SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN                  3,020          650            400   ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........
        COMPREHENSIVE, GA AND SC
    (E)UTOY, SANDY AND PROCTOR               1,100           86            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
        CREEKS, GA

                   HAWAII

    (E)ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI                 900          134            140   ...........            140   ...........            140   ...........
    (N)BARBERS POINT HARBOR                 23,200          327  ..............          173  ..............          173  ..............          173
        MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI
       HAWAII WATER MANAGENMENT, HI            500          100  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
    (N)HONOLULU HARBOR MODIFICATIONS,          750          418            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        OAHU, HI
    (N)KAHULUI HARBOR MODIFICATIONS,           700          175            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
        MAUI, HI
    (N)KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR              900          100             40   ...........             40   ...........             40   ...........
        MODIFICATIONS, HAWAII, HI
       KIHEI AREA EROSION, HI                  100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
       WAIKIKI EROSION CONTROL, HI             100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                    IDAHO

  (FDP)BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID                  800          100            165   ...........            165   ...........            165   ...........
       GOOSE CREEK, OAKLEY, ID                 100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)KOOTENAI RIVER AT BONNERS               400           50             60   ...........             60   ...........             60   ...........
        FERRY, ID
  (FDP)LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID          800          100            165   ...........            165   ...........            165   ...........
       PAYETTE AND SNAKE RIVER, ID             100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........

                  ILLINOIS

    (E)ALEXANDER AND PULASKI                 9,750  ...........  ..............          200  ..............          200  ..............          200
        COUNTIES, IL
   (FC)DES PLAINES RIVER, IL                31,700          261  ..............          400  ..............          400  ..............          400
  (FDP)DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE          1,500  ...........            250   ...........            750   ...........            250   ...........
        II)
       ILLINOIS BEACH STATE PARK, IL   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          325  ..............  ...........
    (E)ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM              2,305          377            500   ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........
        RESTORATION, IL
  (FDP)KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN, IL AND          1,770          987            300   ...........            600   ...........            300   ...........
        IN
  (SPE)PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT,        1,060          479            400   ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........
        IL
    (E)ROCK RIVER, IL AND WI                 1,760          158            700   ...........            700   ...........            700   ...........
  (RCP)UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV          59,980       57,875          2,105   ...........          2,105   ...........          2,105   ...........
        IMPROVEMENTS, IL, IA, MN, MO
    (N)UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV     ...........        5,418  ..............        4,707  ..............        4,707  ..............        4,707
        IMPROVEMENTS, IL, IA, MN, MO
  (SPE)UPPER MISS RVR SYS FLOW               6,650        5,477            888   ...........            888   ...........            888   ...........
        FREQUENCY STUDY, IL, IA, MN,
        M
    (N)WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL                   4,950          150  ..............          300  ..............          300  ..............          300
   (FC)WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL                 18,750          173  ..............          310  ..............          310  ..............          310

                   INDIANA

       INDIANA HARBOR ENVIRONMENTAL    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........  ..............  ...........
        DREDGING, IN
    (N)JOHN T MYERS LOCKS AND DAM, IN      230,000          476  ..............        2,210  ..............        2,210  ..............        2,210
        AND KY
       LITTLE CALUMET RIVER (CADDY     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          250  ..............  ...........
        MARSH DITCH), IN
       OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          300  ..............  ...........
        ACCESS, IN
       WHITE RIVER, MUNCIE, IN         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            250   ...........  ..............  ...........

                    IOWA

  (FDP)DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS,        1,385          439            400   ...........            600   ...........            400   ...........
        IA
  (FDP)INDIAN CREEK, COUNCIL BLUFFS,           350          100             80   ...........             80   ...........             80   ...........
        IA

                   KANSAS

  (RCP)TOPEKA, KS                            1,287          897            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
   (FC)TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO        25,600          847  ..............          353  ..............          353  ..............          353
       UPPER TURKEY RUN CREEK, KS              100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER           2,100           86            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        WATERSHEDS, KS

                  KENTUCKY

  (FDP)BANKLICK CREEK, KY                      850          100            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (N)GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO         238,800  ...........  ..............        1,300  ..............        1,300  ..............        1,300
        RIVER, KY AND OH
  (FDP)LICKING RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KY            850          365            260   ...........            260   ...........            260   ...........
    (E)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE,                850          100            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
        JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY
  (FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL           850          367            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
        CREEK BASIN, KY
  (FDP)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE,              1,784        1,523            161   ...........            161   ...........            161   ...........
        SOUTHWEST, KY
    (N)OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM SYSTEMS         45,300       39,648          4,141   ...........          4,141   ...........          4,141   ...........
        STUDY, KY, IL, IN, PA, WV
  (FDP)OHIO RIVER SHORELINE, PADUCAH,  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          400  ..............  ...........
        KY

                  LOUISIANA

    (E)AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES           2,100          100            200   ...........            400   ...........            200   ...........
        ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA
       ATCHAFALAYA RIVER, BAYOUS               500  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            250   ...........
        CHENE, BOENF AND BLACK, LA
    (N)CALCASIEU LOCK, LA                    2,900          429            339   ...........            339   ...........            339   ...........
  (FDP)CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA             2,100          100            100   ...........            300   ...........            100   ...........
       HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA                100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (N)INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY LOCKS,          5,380        4,694            686   ...........            686   ...........            686   ...........
        LA
   (FC)JEFFERSON PARISH, LA                153,800  ...........  ..............          215  ..............          500  ..............          215
   (FC)LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA                 60,000  ...........  ..............          200  ..............          200  ..............          200
    (E)LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA               17,500        1,500          1,750   ...........          1,750   ...........          1,750   ...........
        ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA
   (FC)ORLEANS PARISH, LA                   71,200  ...........  ..............          164  ..............          300  ..............          164
  (FDP)ST BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD         1,700          100            100   ...........            500   ...........            100   ...........
        CONTROL, LA
       ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD          100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        CONTROL, LA
       PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD          100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        CONTROL, LA
  (FDP)WEST SHORE, LAKE                      1,850        1,504            346   ...........            346   ...........            346   ...........
        PONTCHARTRAIN, LA

                  MARYLAND

    (E)ANACOSTIA RIVER FEDERAL               3,000        2,167            500   ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........
        WATERSHED IMPACT ASSESSMENT,
        M
  (FDP)ANACOSTIA RIVER, PG COUNTY            1,453          954            455   ...........            455   ...........            455   ...........
        LEVEE, MD AND DC
  (FDP)BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN, GWYNNS        1,232        1,164             68   ...........             68   ...........             68   ...........
        FALLS, MD
   (FC)CUMBERLAND, MD                          750  ...........  ..............          700  ..............          700  ..............          700
    (E)EASTERN SHORE, MD                     1,200          186            400   ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........
    (E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY                   460          304            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
        WATERSHED, MATTAWOMAN, MD
    (E)LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY                   650          132            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
        WATERSHED, ST MARY'S, MD
    (E)PATUXENT RIVER, PRINCE GEORGES        3,250           43  ..............          100  ..............          100  ..............          100
        COUNTY, MD
    (E)SMITH ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL            5,655  ...........  ..............          100  ..............          100  ..............          100
        RESTORATION, MD

                MASSACHUSETTS

    (E)BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED            1,627          888            310   ...........            310   ...........            310   ...........
        RESTORATION, MA AND RI
    (N)BOSTON HARBOR, MA (45-FOOT            1,100          100            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
        CHANNEL)
    (E)COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS                   600  ...........            100   ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA
       MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          500  ..............  ...........
        BOSTON, MA
    (E)SOMERSET AND SEARSBURG DAMS,            382           82            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
        DEERFIELD RIVER, MA AND VT

                  MICHIGAN

       BELL ISLE SHORELINE, DETROIT,           100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        MI
       MUSKEGON LAKE, MI               ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            250   ...........  ..............  ...........
       GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION SYSTEM,        1,000  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
        MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA,
        AND WI
    (N)SAULT STE MARIE (REPLACEMENT        130,600        1,488  ..............        1,000  ..............        1,000  ..............        1,000
        LOCK), MI

                  MINNESOTA

    (E)UPPER MISS RIVER WATERSHED            1,310          100            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
        MGMT, LAKE ITASCA TO L/D 2,

                 MISSISSIPPI

       PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........             50   ...........  ..............  ...........

                  MISSOURI

   (FC)CHESTERFIELD, MO                     19,825  ...........  ..............          250  ..............          250  ..............          250
  (RCP)KANSAS CITY, MO AND KS                2,460          950            312   ...........            312   ...........            312   ...........
  (COM)MISSOURI AND MIDDLE                     500  ...........            500   ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........
        MISSISSIPPI RIVERS
        ENHANCEMENT PROJE
  (RCP)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM,          1,570        1,136            220   ...........            220   ...........            220   ...........
        UNITS L455 AND R460-471, MO
   (FC)RIVER DES PERES, MO                  17,400          530  ..............          330  ..............          330  ..............          330
    (N)ST LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL           15,524        3,201  ..............          265  ..............          265  ..............          265
   (FC)ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO        6,000          245  ..............          445  ..............          445  ..............          445
   (FC)SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA,           6,500  ...........  ..............          170  ..............          170  ..............          170
        KANSAS CITY, MO

                   MONTANA

       LOWER YELLOWSTONE RIVER         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          100
        DIVERSION DAM, MT
  (COM)YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT        2,000  ...........            500   ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........

                  NEBRASKA

   (FC)ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE          19,000          100  ..............          275  ..............          275  ..............          275
  (FDP)LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND                2,431        1,944            217   ...........            217   ...........            217   ...........
        TRIBUTARIES, NE
   (FC)SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO,         12,350          176  ..............          220  ..............          220  ..............          220
        NE

                   NEVADA

    (E)LOWER LAS VEGAS WASH WETLANDS,        1,400        1,100            100   ...........            100   ...........            500   ...........
        NV
   (FC)TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV                  39,200        6,186  ..............          500  ..............          500  ..............          500
    (E)WALKER RIVER BASIN, NV                1,360          300            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........

                NEW HAMPSHIRE

       MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN                 2,000  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........

                 NEW JERSEY

    (E)BARNEGAT BAY, NJ                      6,000  ...........  ..............           50  ..............           50  ..............           50
   (SP)BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          450  ..............  ...........
        HARBOR INLET, NJ
   (SP)BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG           563          172  ..............  ...........  ..............          391  ..............          390
        HARBOR INLET, NJ
   (SP)DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE,         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          222  ..............  ...........
        OAKWOOD BEACH, NJ AND DE
   (SP)DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, REEDS   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          135  ..............  ...........
        BEACH TO PIERCES POINT
   (SP)DELWARE BAY COASTLINE, VILLAS   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          155  ..............  ...........
        AND VICINITY, NJ AND DE
   (SP)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          150  ..............  ...........
        TOWNSENDS INLET, NJ
   (SP)LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS TO CAPE          723          200  ..............  ...........  ..............          345  ..............          350
        MAY POINT, NJ
  (FDP)LOWER SADDLE RIVER, NJ          ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          100  ..............  ...........
   (SP)MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          150  ..............  ...........
        INLET, NJ
    (E)NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL               1,540        1,322            218   ...........            218   ...........            218   ...........
        WATERWAY, ENV RESTORATION, NJ
  (FDP)PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          300  ..............  ...........
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK            1,375          293            550   ...........            550   ...........            550   ...........
        BAY, LEONARDO, NJ
   (SP)RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK            1,775        1,484            291   ...........            291   ...........            291   ...........
        BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ
  (FDP)SHREWSBURY RIVER AND                  1,500           86            120   ...........            120   ...........            120   ...........
        TRIBUTARIES IN MONMOUTH
        COUNTY, N
  (FDP)SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER            2,800        2,280            450   ...........            450   ...........            450   ...........
        BASIN, NJ
    (E)STONY BROOK, NJ                       1,500           86            120   ...........            120   ...........            120   ...........
  (FDP)UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBS,          800          356            300   ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
        LONG HILL, MORRIS COUNT
  (FDP)UPPER ROCKAWAY RIVER, MORRIS          1,400          356            300   ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
        COUNTY, NJ
  (FDP)WOODBRIDGE AND RAHWAY, NJ             1,500          246            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........

                 NEW MEXICO

  (FDP)ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE             920          846             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
        AND TRIBUTARIES, NM
  (COM)RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND          2,000  ...........            500   ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
        TX
       SANTA CRUZ DAM SEDIMENT STUDY,          100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        NM
    (E)SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE                1,450          586            330   ...........            330   ...........            330   ...........
        REDUCTION STUDY, ALBUQUERQUE,
        N

                  NEW YORK

       ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........          1,000   ...........  ..............  ...........
        MONITORING PROGRAM, NY
    (N)ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND        221,800        6,253  ..............          347  ..............          347  ..............          347
        HOOK MARINE TERMINAL, NY
  (FDP)AUSABLE RIVER BASIN, ESSEX AND          800          179            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        CLINTON COUNTIES, NY
  (FDP)BOQUET RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES,           800          179            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        ESSEX COUNTY, NY
  (FDP)BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY                   800          150            250   ...........            450   ...........            250   ...........
       BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........  ..............  ...........
        DREDGING, NY
  (FDP)CLINTON COUNTY, NY                    1,500           86            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
    (E)FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY            1,614          708            520   ...........            520   ...........            520   ...........
    (E)HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY           6,100           86            800   ...........            800   ...........            800   ...........
        AND NJ
    (N)HUDSON RIVER HABITAT                  6,000           86  ..............           50  ..............           50  ..............           50
        RESTORATION, NY
    (N)HUDSON RIVER HABITAT                  2,399        1,213             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
        RESTORATION, NY
    (N)HUDSON RIVER, HUDSON, NY              1,500           86            120   ...........            120   ...........            120   ...........
   (SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND          1,000  ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
        PLUMB BEACH, ARVERNE, NY
   (SP)JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND          1,850        1,554            296   ...........            296   ...........            296   ...........
        PLUMB BEACH, NY
       LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY         ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........  ..............  ...........
  (FDP)LINDENHURST, NY                         800          174            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
       MONTAUK POINT, NY                       450          163  ..............  ...........            200   ...........            287   ...........
    (N)NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY             400,000        2,030  ..............        2,528  ..............        2,528  ..............        2,528
        HARBOR, NY AND NJ
    (N)NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE             1,200          616            259   ...........            259   ...........            259   ...........
        AREAS, NY
   (SP)NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND,           1,800          659            300   ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
        BAYVILLE, NY
  (SPE)ONONDAGA LAKE, NY                     1,670        1,014            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
    (E)SAW MILL RIVER AND                      800          150             50   ...........            100   ...........             50   ...........
        TRIBUTARIES, NY
       SAW MILL RIVER AT ELMSFORD/     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          750  ..............  ...........
        GREENBURGH, NY
    (E)SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, NY        2,100          225             90   ...........             90   ...........             90   ...........
   (SP)SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND,         2,000        1,266            400   ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........
        NY
    (E)SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN WATER         3,250           52  ..............          100  ..............          100  ..............          100
        MANAGEMENT, NY, PA AND MD
    (E)UPPER DELAWARE RIVER                  1,300          150            776   ...........            776   ...........            776   ...........
        WATERSHED, NY
       UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN,  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........             50   ...........  ..............  ...........
        NY

               NORTH CAROLINA

       BOGUE BANKS, NC                 ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            250   ...........  ..............  ...........
    (E)CURRITUCK SOUND, NC                   1,100  ...........            100   ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
   (SP)DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC               2,247        2,197             50   ...........             50   ...........            300   ...........
   (SP)DARE COUNTY BEACHES, HATTERAS   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........  ..............  ...........
        AND ORACOKE ISLAND, NC
    (E)LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC             1,470          356            600   ...........            600   ...........            600   ...........
    (N)MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC          84,557        9,250  ..............          250  ..............          250  ..............          250
  (FDP)NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC                 1,100          100            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........

                NORTH DAKOTA

  (SPE)DEVILS LAKE, ND                       3,733        2,856             50   ...........          2,050   ...........  ..............        4,000
   (FC)GRAFTON, PARK RIVER, ND         ...........           50  ..............          900  ..............          900  ..............          900

                    OHIO

    (E)ASHTABULA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL   ...........          516  ..............          384  ..............          384  ..............          384
        DREDGING, OH
  (FDP)BUTLER COUNTY, OH                       850  ...........            100   ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
  (FDP)COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH        1,600          358            600   ...........            600   ...........            600   ...........
    (E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV                 556          200            306   ...........            306   ...........            306   ...........
        RESTORATION, MONDAY CREEK, OH
    (E)HOCKING RIVER BASIN ENV                 700           50            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        RESTORATION, SUNDAY CREEK, OH
       MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........  ..............  ...........
        DREDGING, OH AND PA
    (E)MUSKINGUM BASIN SYSTEM STUDY,         1,600          100            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
        OH
       OHIO RIVER FLOW COMMODITY       ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........  ..............  ...........
        STUDY, OH
  (FDP)RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO                   600          100            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
       SANDUSKY RIVER, TIFFIN, OH              100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
       STEUBENVILLE, OH                ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            175   ...........  ..............  ...........
       WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH,            100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        IN AND MI

                  OKLAHOMA

    (E)CIMARRON RIVER AND                    2,600           86            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        TRIBUTARIES, OK, KS, NM AND
        CO
    (E)SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER              4,100           86            200   ...........            700   ...........            200   ...........
        RESOURCE STUDY, OK
  (FDP)WARR ACRES, OK                        1,100           86            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........

                   OREGON

    (N)COLUMBIA RIVER NAVIGATION             1,800          877  ..............          923  ..............          923  ..............          923
        CHANNEL DEEPENING, OR AND WA
    (E)TILLAMOOK BAY AND ESTUARY             1,808          452            274   ...........            274   ...........            274   ...........
        ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR
  (COM)WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW,        2,284        1,973            210   ...........            210   ...........            210   ...........
        OR
    (E)WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL        1,100           86            114   ...........            114   ...........            114   ...........
        DREDGING, OR
    (E)WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN           1,515          165            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        RESTORATION, OR

                PENNSYLVANIA

  (FDP)BLOOMSBURG, PA                        1,152          534            441   ...........            441   ...........            441   ...........
    (E)LOWER WEST BR, SUS RIVER, ENV         1,030          601            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
        RESTORATION, BUFFALO CRE
       NEW CASTLE, PA                          100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)TURTLE CREEK BASIN, UPPER               432          366             66   ...........             66   ...........             66   ...........
        TURTLE CREEK ENV RESTORATION

                 PUERTO RICO

   (FC)RIO GUANAJIBO, PR                    21,200        1,434  ..............          441  ..............          441  ..............          441

                RHODE ISLAND

    (E)RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM                1,200          286            191   ...........            191   ...........            191   ...........
        RESTORATION, RI
    (E)RHODE ISLAND SOUTH COAST,               540          486             54   ...........             54   ...........             54   ...........
        HABITAT REST AND STRM DMG
        REDU

               SOUTH CAROLINA

  (RCP)ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL                 3,100        1,202            581   ...........            581   ...........            581   ...........
        WATERWAY, SC
       BROAD RIVER BASIN, SC                   200  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........
    (E)CHARLESTON ESTUARY, SC                1,600          100            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
   (SP)PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC                      468          249            219   ...........            219   ...........            219   ...........
       WACCAMAW RIVER, SC                      100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
    (E)YADKIN--PEE DEE RIVER                 9,750  ...........  ..............           50  ..............           50  ..............           50
        WATERSHED, SC AND NC

                SOUTH DAKOTA

       JAMES RIVER, SD                       1,500  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            500   ...........

                  TENNESSEE

  (FDP)DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN                   1,350          125            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
    (E)DUCK RIVER WATERSHED, TN                375          186             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
    (E)FRENCH BROAD WATERSHED, TN            1,565          300            500   ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........
    (E)NORTH CHICKAMAUGA CREEK, TN             650          398             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........

                    TEXAS

  (FDP)BOIS D'ARC CREEK, BONHAM, TX          1,100           86            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
  (FDP)BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES,        1,610          450            230   ...........            230   ...........            230   ...........
        WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX
    (N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL,          1,100          400            456   ...........            456   ...........            456   ...........
        LAQUINTA CHANNEL, TX
    (N)CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL,          4,021        1,337          1,008   ...........          1,008   ...........          1,008   ...........
        TX
   (FC)DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION,           89,029        8,460  ..............          100  ..............          100  ..............          100
        TRINITY RIVER, TX
       FREEPORT AND VINCITY,                   100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        HURRICANE/FLOOD PROTECTION,
        TX
    (N)GIWW MODIFICATIONS, TX                7,490           86            195   ...........            195   ...........            195   ...........
  (RCP)GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT            4,370        2,396            500   ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........
        O'CONNOR, TX
    (N)GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS           6,007        5,279            728   ...........            728   ...........            728   ...........
        RIVER, TX
    (N)GIWW, MATAGORDA BAY, TX         ...........  ...........  ..............          100  ..............          200  ..............          100
  (RCP)GIWW, PORT O'CONNOR TO CORPUS         4,510        1,488            653   ...........            653   ...........            653   ...........
        CHRISTI BAY, TX
   (FC)GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX           166,657        5,976  ..............          434  ..............          434  ..............          434
    (E)GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO             2,500          344            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        RIVER BASINS, TX
   (FC)HUNTING BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX           90,488        1,000  ..............          100  ..............          337  ..............          500
    (E)LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX        9,825          514            600   ...........          1,500   ...........            600   ...........
    (E)MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX               1,560          857            300   ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
    (E)NORTH BOSQUE RIVER, TX          ...........  ...........  ..............           50  ..............           50  ..............           50
    (E)NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS           19,500          360  ..............          164  ..............          164  ..............        1,000
        CHRISTI, TX
  (FDP)NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX                   975          430            280   ...........            280   ...........            280   ...........
   (FC)PECAN BAYOU, BROWNWOOD, TX            5,540  ...........  ..............          100  ..............          100  ..............          100
   (FC)RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX               77,100          338  ..............          100  ..............          700  ..............          100
    (N)SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX           3,515          643            544   ...........            544   ...........            544   ...........
    (E)SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY,         4,835           86            114   ...........            114   ...........            114   ...........
        TX
   (FC)SOUTH MAIN CHANNEL, TX              150,050        6,359  ..............          574  ..............          574  ..............          574
    (E)SULPHUR RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL             580          295             50   ...........             50   ...........             50   ...........
        RESTORATION, TX
  (FDP)UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX         9,310        7,487            500   ...........          1,100   ...........          1,100   ...........

                    UTAH

  (FDP)PROVO AND VICINITY, UT                1,495          595            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........

                  VIRGINIA

    (N)AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK,          1,168          826            342   ...........            342   ...........            342   ...........
        VA
    (N)AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK,         22,168  ...........  ..............          200  ..............          200  ..............          200
        VA
       CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, VA    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            170   ...........  ..............  ...........
    (E)ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENVIR          1,301        1,054            247   ...........            247   ...........            247   ...........
        RESTORATION, HAMPTON ROAD
    (N)JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA               9,795          168  ..............          277  ..............          277  ..............          277
  (FDP)JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR,        1,100          100            200   ...........            200   ...........            200   ...........
        VA AND NC (SECTION 216)
       LAKE MERRIWEATHER, GOSHEN DAM   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          150  ..............  ...........
        AND SPILLWAY, VA
    (E)LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER                700          100            300   ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
        BASIN, VA
       NEW RIVER BASIN, VA, NC, AND    ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            200   ...........  ..............  ...........
        WV
    (N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS,          3,050        1,213          1,188   ...........          1,188   ...........          1,188   ...........
        CRANEY ISLAND, VA
    (E)POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA            1,477        1,022            165   ...........            165   ...........            165   ...........
    (E)POWELL RIVER, STRAIGHT, REEDS         5,000  ...........  ..............          200  ..............          200  ..............          200
        AND JONES CREEK, VA
    (E)PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY                   775          396            205   ...........            205   ...........            205   ...........
        WATERSHED, VA
    (E)RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, EMBREY              697          440            257   ...........            257   ...........            257           600
        DAM, VA

                 WASHINGTON

    (E)BELLINGHAM BAY, WA                      400           50             60   ...........             60   ...........             60   ...........
   (FC)CENTRALIA, WA                        56,000        3,440  ..............          250  ..............          500  ..............        1,750
    (E)CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA                700           86            150   ...........            150   ...........            150   ...........
    (E)DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER             50,825  ...........  ..............          222  ..............          222  ..............          222
        BASIN, WA
   (FC)HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA                40,456        2,779  ..............          600  ..............          600  ..............        1,500
       LAKE WALLULA NAVIGATION                 100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        CHANNEL, COLUMBIA RIVER, WA
  (RCP)LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA        2,566        1,271            350   ...........            350   ...........            790   ...........
       LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........            100   ...........
        RESTORATION, WA AND OR
   (SP)OCEAN SHORES, WA                        850          150            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (N)PUGET SOUND CONFINED DISPOSAL         2,124        1,348            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
        SITES, WA
    (E)PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE            700           86             65   ...........             65   ...........             65   ...........
        HABITAT RESTORATION, WA
  (FDP)SKAGIT RIVER, WA                      2,547        1,495            270   ...........            270   ...........            270   ...........
    (E)SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA               600          110            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
    (E)STILLAGUAMISH RIVER BASIN, WA        31,100  ...........  ..............          225  ..............          225  ..............          225
    (E)TRI-CITIES AREA RIVERSHORE              800          269            250   ...........            250   ...........            250   ...........
        ENHANCEMENT, WA

                WEST VIRGINIA

       ERICSON/WOOD COUNTY PUBLIC      ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          500  ..............  ...........
        PORT, WV
   (FC)ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV            13,546        1,975  ..............          200  ..............          200  ..............          200
   (FC)LOWER MUD RIVER, WV                  18,750          600  ..............          650  ..............          650  ..............          650
  (FDP)MERCER COUNTY, WV                       414          307            107   ...........            107   ...........            107   ...........
       WEIRTON PORT, WV                ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............          750  ..............  ...........

                  WISCONSIN

       FOX RIVER, WI                   ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            250   ...........  ..............  ...........
       SAXON HARBOR, WI                        100  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........             50   ...........

                   WYOMING

    (E)JACKSON HOLE RESTORATION, WY          8,000  ...........  ..............          100  ..............          100  ..............          300

                MISCELLANEOUS

       COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION   ...........  ...........          2,300   ...........          2,200   ...........          1,500   ...........
       ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES      ...........  ...........            700   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
       FLOOD DAMAGE DATA               ...........  ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........
       FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT          ...........  ...........          9,000   ...........          8,200   ...........          8,000   ...........
        SERVICES
       GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION     ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........            600   ...........  ..............  ...........
        PROGRAM
       HYDROLOGIC STUDIES              ...........  ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........
       INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES     ...........  ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........            500   ...........
       NATIONAL SHORELINE              ...........  ...........            300   ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
       OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS     ...........  ...........          8,900   ...........          8,000   ...........          7,900   ...........
       PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES   ...........  ...........          6,500   ...........          5,600   ...........          6,700   ...........
       PRECIPITATION STUDIES           ...........  ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........            400   ...........
        (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE)
       REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC       ...........  ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........            300   ...........
        INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT
       RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT        ...........  ...........         26,000   ...........         25,000   ...........         23,000   ...........
       SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL        ...........  ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........            100   ...........
        INFORMATION CENTERS
       STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL  ...........  ...........            800   ...........            700   ...........            700   ...........
        SURVEY)
       TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS          ...........  ...........            800   ...........            700   ...........            700   ...........
       TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS            ...........  ...........            650   ...........            650   ...........            650   ...........
        TECHNOLOGY CENTER
       REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED       ...........  ...........        -23,250   ...........        -35,971   ...........        -35,050   ...........
        SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE AND
        CARRYOVER BALANCES
                                      ==================================================================================================================
             TOTAL, GENERAL            ...........  ...........        101,569        36,181        105,076        48,151         92,552        46,667
              INVESTIGATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         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

    Fire Island, AK.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a 
reconnaissance study of the need for a causeway to Fire Island, 
AK in an effort to relieve transportation pressure at Anchorage 
International Airport.
    Kotzebue Small Boat Harbor, AK.--An appropriation of 
$150,000 is included for the Corps to undertake a study of the 
need for harbor facilities at Kotzebue, AK. Currently, there 
are no harbor facilities to serve the community and residents 
are forced to tie their boats directly to the beach.
    Saint George Harbor Improvement, AK.--The Committee 
understands that large waves are entering the entrance and 
inner harbor area at Saint George Harbor in Alaska making 
ingress and egress into the harbor almost impossible. 
Therefore, the Committee has included $200,000 for a 
feasibility study that will look at ways to reduce wave action 
in the inner harbor, but more importantly, to create a safe 
entrance channel wave environment into the harbor.
    Sitka Harbor, AK.--The Committee has included $100,000 for 
a reconnaissance study of possible modifications to the western 
channel breakwater in Sitka Harbor, AK.
    Whittier, AK, Breakwater.--The Committee has provided 
$169,000 for the Corps to investigate the need for a breakwater 
at Whittier, AK to protect the boat launch facility.
    Luxapalila Creek, AL.--The Committee has recommended an 
appropriation of $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study to determine the 
Federal interest in the Luxapalila Creek flood control project 
in Alabama.
    North Little Rock, Dark Hollow, AR.--The Committee has 
included $500,000 for the Corps to continue on an expedited 
basis the preconstruction engineering and design for the North 
Little Rock, Dark Hollow, AR flood control project.
    White River Minimum Flows, AR.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $850,000 for the White River Minimum 
Flows Study in Arkansas. This work is required in order to 
develop a water allocation and environmental restoration plan 
to provide sufficient minimum flows from the White River Basin 
Lakes to sustain trout fisheries and to provide for aquatic 
ecosystem enhancements.
    Llagas Creek, CA.--The Committee has included $700,000 for 
the Corps to expedite the preconstruction engineering and 
design on the Llagas Creek, CA flood control project.
    Pajaro River at Watsonville, CA.--The Committee is aware 
that the preconstruction engineering and design on the Pajaro 
River at Watsonville, CA project was already underway when the 
Pajaro River Mainstem study was funded in fiscal year 2000. 
Because of the interrelationship of the two projects, both 
studies were combined and now are funded in Pajaro River at 
Watsonville. In a effort to maintain the schedule of this 
important flood control project, the Committee has provided an 
additional $600,000 over the budget request to continue the 
effort on the General Reevaluation Report, including a 
evaluation of the Pajaro River Mainstem.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Farmington Dam, CA.--Severe budget 
constraints do not allow the Committee to include funding for 
the San Joaquin River Basin, Farmington Dam planning and 
design. However, the Corps is urged to work cooperatively with 
the project sponsor and other non-governmental organizations 
with experience in wetland restoration in an effort to explore 
options to accomplishing this work.
    City of Westminster, CA.--An amount of $100,000 is 
recommended by the Committee to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of flood damage prevention measures for 
protection of flood prone areas within the City of 
Westminister, California.
    Fountain Creek and Tributaries, CO.--The Committee is aware 
that recent floods along Fountain Creek in Colorado caused an 
estimated $100,000,000 in damages to roads, bridges, 
residential and other improvements. In an effort to begin to 
address solutions to the flooding problem, the Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and 
complete a reconnaissance study to determine the Federal 
interest in potential solutions for flood control.
    Delaware Coastline Protection, DE and NJ.--The Committee 
recommendation of $428,000 for the Delaware Coastline 
Protection project includes $124,000 for the Corps to complete 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Roosevelt Inlet 
to Lewes Beach reach, and $304,000 to complete the 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Broadkill Beach 
segment of the project.
    Hawaii Water Management Study.--An important part of 
Hawaii's water resource system are antiquated ditches developed 
by sugar companies to deliver water through portions of the 
Hawaiian islands. The Hawaii Water Management Study includes 
development of a plan to increase the efficiency of various 
existing delivery systems. The Committee recommendation 
includes $200,000 for the Corps to continue previous efforts to 
study these systems and to assist the State in diversification 
by helping to define the cost of repairing and maintaining 
selected ditch systems.
    Goose Creek Watershed, Oakley, ID.--An amount of $100,000 
is recommended for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a 
reconnaissance study to determine possible flood damage 
reduction, water conservation, ecosystem restoration and other 
related needs along the Goose Creek watershed near Oakley, ID.
    Upper Turkey Creek Basin, KS.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Upper Turkey Creek Basin, KS study for the 
Corps to complete the reconnaissance phase investigation. The 
study will examine a full range of structural and nonstructural 
measures to reduce recurring flood damages from overflow for 
the Turkey Creek channel in the upper portion of the Basin.
    Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bouef and Black, LA.--The 
Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
undertake activities necessary to determine if the deepening of 
the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bourf and Black navigation 
channel is technically sound, environmentally acceptable and 
economically justified. The Corps should complete its 
determination as soon a possible using funds provided herein 
and other available funds.
    Hurricane Protection, LA.--Recent hurricanes and tropical 
storms impacting coastal areas of the United States have 
highlighted the concerns regarding the need for adequate 
coastal flood damage protection. The State of Louisiana and 
many local governments there have expressed concern that the 
current hurricane protection measures do not provide adequate 
protection for large storm events. If such storms were to 
impact the coastal area of Louisiana, extreme damages and loss 
of life could be anticipated. In order to address these 
concerns, the Committee has included $100,000 for the Corps to 
review currently authorized hurricane protection projects and 
determine if modifications are required to provide a higher 
level of protection.
    Urban Flood Control Studies, LA.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 each for the Plaquemines Parish and St. 
Charles Parish Urban Flood Control studies. The funds will be 
used by the Corps to initiate reconnaissance studies of flood 
control measures in the Parishes.
    Belle Isle Shoreline, Detroit, MI.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $100,000 for the Belle Isle Shoreline, 
Detroit, Michigan study. The funding will be used to initiate 
and complete a Section 905(b) analysis, and to prepare a study 
management plan, if appropriate.
    Sault Ste Marie, Lock Replacement, MI.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 to continue preconstruction 
engineering and design of a replacement lock at Sault Ste Marie 
in Michigan.
    Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, NJ.--An amount 
of $390,000 in recommended to complete preconstruction 
engineering and design on the Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg 
Harbor Inlet, NJ project.
    Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, NJ.--The Committee 
has recommended inclusion of $350,000 for the Corps to complete 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Lower Cape May 
Meadows, Cape May Point, NJ shore protection project.
    Rio Grande River Basin, NM.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $600,000 for the Rio Grande River Basin study in New 
Mexico. The funding will allow the Corps to undertake studies 
focused on a Geographic Information System for the acequia 
system in New Mexico, regional water planning within New 
Mexico, and detailed analyses of water conveyance and delivery, 
and ecosystem degradation, including fish mobility studies, on 
the Rio Grande River mainstem from San Acacia Diversion Dam to 
Elephant Butte Reservoir. These studies are to be performed 
under the authority of Section 729 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986.
    Santa Cruz Dam Sediment Study, NM.--The Committee has 
included $100,000 for the Corps to undertake a reconnaissance 
study of causes and potential solutions to sediment buildup 
behind Santa Cruz Dam in New Mexico.
    Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, NV.--An amount of $500,000 is 
provided for the Corps to advance the completion of the Las 
Vegas Wash Wetlands feasibility report. The Committee expects 
the Corps to make every effort to complete the feasibility 
phase as soon as practicable.
    Hudson-Raritan Estuary, NY and NJ.--The Committee urges the 
Secretary to include in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, NY and NJ, 
study an evaluation of environmental restoration measures in 
the Lower Passaic River, from Dundee Dam to Newark Bay.
    Montauk Point, NY.--The Committee understands the combined 
forces of storm induced erosion and long term constant erosion 
threaten the historic Montauk Point lighthouse in New York. 
Further, the Committee understands that the State is now 
prepared to support the effort and has funds available. 
Therefore, the Committee has recommended $287,000 for the Corps 
to develop alternative solutions to the erosion threatening the 
lighthouse, and complete the feasibility report.
    Sandusky River, Tiffin, OH.--An appropriation of $100,000 
is recommended for the Sandusky River, Tiffin, Ohio study. The 
funds will be used by the Corps to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of possible solutions or improvements to 
flood damage protection works along the Sandusky River in the 
vicinity of Tiffin, OH.
    Western Lake Erie Basin, OH, IN, and MI.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps to prepare a Section 905(b) 
report, and, if appropriate, to develop a study management plan 
for the Western Lake Erie Basin study. The study will address 
measures to improve flood control, navigation, water quality, 
and other water resource needs in a comprehensive manner in the 
western Lake Erie Basin of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
    New Castle, PA.--The Committee has included $100,000 for 
the Corps to undertake a Section 905(b) study of water and 
related improvements along Neshanock Creek in the vicinity of 
New Castle, PA.
    Broad River Basin, SC.--The Santee, Cooper, and Congaree 
reconnaissance study, completed in 1997, identified a need for 
site specific investigations in each sub-basin. The Broad River 
Basin is one of the upper four sub-basins in the Santee, 
Cooper, and Congaree Basin and includes portions of 18 
counties. The Committee has included $200,000 for the Corps to 
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study of potential 
solutions to flooding in the Broad River Basin.
    Waccamaw River, SC.--An appropriation of $100,000 is 
provided for the Corps to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of flooding along the Waccamaw River in 
South Carolina.
    Freeport and Vicinity Hurricane Flood Protection, TX.--The 
Committee is aware of the change in existing conditions and new 
hurricane data that may severely impact the existing Freeport 
Harbor and Vicinity Hurricane Flood Protection, TX project. 
Therefore, the Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps to 
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study to determine the 
need to reconstruct the existing Federal project to reflect 
current conditions and future threats from hurricane events.
    Upper Trinity River Basin, TX.--The Committee has provided 
$1,100,000 for the continuation of the Upper Trinity River 
Basin, TX feasibility study. The additional funding over the 
amount included in the budget request will allow initiation of 
the Big Fossil Creek Watershed study.
    Lake Wallula Navigation Channel, Columbia River, WA.--The 
Committee has included $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
undertake a study to determine if Federal assumption of 
maintenance of the Lake Wallula navigation channel is 
economically justified and environmentally acceptable.
    Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration, WA and OR.--The 
Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000 for the Corps 
to initiate a reconnaissance study of the ecosystem restoration 
opportunities along the Lower Columbia River. The Committee 
understands that the Columbia River Channel Deepening project, 
the lower Columbia River Estuary Plan Implementation Team, and 
the ``All H'' paper os Salmon Recovery, have identified 
possible restoration opportunities. Therefore, a comprehensive 
ecosystem restoration study would serve as a catalyst to bring 
together and implement current efforts by a number of 
governmental and private organizations.
    Saxon Harbor, WI.--The Committee has included $50,000 for 
the Corps to initiate a reconnaissance study of the operation 
of the completed project at Saxon Harbor, WI.
    Planning assistance to States.--The Committee has provided 
$6,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers' planning assistance to 
States program. The Corps is to work with the city of Laurel, 
MT to provide appropriate assistance to ensure reliability in 
the city's Yellowstone River water source. The Committee has 
included in the recommendation $200,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to assist the city of Memphis, TN in developing a 
master plan for riverfront development within the city along 
the Mississippi River.
    Flood Plain Management Services.--Within the $8,000,000 
recommended for Flood Plain Management Services, the Committee 
has included $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a 
flood plain management study at Glendive, Montana.

                         construction, general

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $1,385,032,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   1,346,000,000
House allowance.........................................   1,378,430,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,361,449,000

    An appropriation of $1,361,449,000 is recommended for 
ongoing construction activities.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

                                                        CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of                                                                    Total Federal   Allocated to       Budget           House         Committee
project                           Project title                                cost            date          estimate        allowance    recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   ALABAMA

    (N)BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, VICINITY OF JACKSO                   18,950           3,404           2,000           2,000           2,000
    (N)MOBILE HARBOR, AL                                                       331,021          29,964             499             499             499
   (MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERHOUSE AND DAM, AL AND GA (MAJOR REH                 38,700             643           3,000           3,000           3,000
   (MP)WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB)                      31,200           6,398           2,500           2,500           2,500

                                    ALASKA

    (N)CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK                                                        6,050             652           1,312           1,312           1,312
       GALENA, AK                                                                4,100           1,100  ..............  ..............           3,000
    (N)KAKE HARBOR, AK                                                          18,000          12,492           5,508           5,508           5,508
    (N)ST PAUL HARBOR, AK                                                       22,925           8,818           5,616           5,616           5,616
    (N)OUZINKIE HARBOR, AK                                                       8,500           4,200  ..............  ..............           3,000

                                   ARIZONA

    (E)RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ                                61,630           3,957           2,000  ..............  ..............

                                   ARKANSAS

    (N)MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR                    651,000         610,530           3,300           3,300           3,300
    (N)MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR                                       242,000         138,341          20,000          25,000          34,000
   (MP)OZARK POWERHOUSE, AR (MAJOR REHAB)                                       51,800  ..............           1,230  ..............  ..............
       RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR                          ..............  ..............  ..............           2,000  ..............

                                  CALIFORNIA

   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA                                             72,200          26,288          10,000          10,000          10,000
   (FC)AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS)                  97,500           2,400           5,000  ..............  ..............
       BERRYESSA CREEK, CA                                              ..............  ..............  ..............           1,000  ..............
   (FC)CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA                                                   21,900          12,556             100             100             100
   (FC)GUADALUPE RIVER, CA                                                      78,500          73,416           3,500           3,500           7,000
       IMPERIAL BEACH, CA                                               ..............  ..............  ..............             800  ..............
   (FC)KAWEAH RIVER, CA                                                         23,500           3,616             500           3,000             500
   (FC)LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA                                    150,000         140,179           9,821           9,821           7,821
   (FC)LOWER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                            4,810           3,325           1,485           1,485           1,485
   (FC)MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                            32,550          30,750             760             760             760
   (FC)MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA                                                91,800          18,907             500             500             500
   (FC)MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                                 14,900          11,786           2,000           2,000           2,000
   (FC)NAPA RIVER, CA                                                           91,000          17,712           4,000           4,000           4,000
       NORCO BLUFFS, CA                                                         11,250           5,580  ..............  ..............           3,225
   (FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA                            179,900         111,611           3,300           5,000           4,000
   (FC)SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA                   20,000          10,372           4,100           4,100           4,100
       SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA                                ..............  ..............  ..............             250  ..............
   (FC)SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA                                                    16,330           8,050           4,000           4,000           4,000
   (FC)SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA                                            883,000         651,880          18,000          23,000          15,000
    (N)SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA                                                  5,450             450           5,000           5,000           5,000
       STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, CA                                   ..............  ..............  ..............           5,000  ..............
   (FC)SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)                                 30,900             872           1,000           1,000           1,000
       SURFSIDE-SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACH, CA                            ..............  ..............  ..............           5,000  ..............
   (FC)UPPER SACRAMENTO AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA                            5,720           4,055           1,665           1,665           1,665
   (FC)WEST SACRAMENTO, CA                                                      17,700          15,925           1,775           1,775           1,775

                                   DELAWARE

       DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HELOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE           ..............  ..............  ..............           3,000           3,000
   (SP)DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE                                            13,000           5,343             254             254             254

                                   FLORIDA

       BREVARD COUNTY, FL                                               ..............  ..............  ..............           5,000           6,000
    (N)CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL                                                    133,750          35,885             847             847             847
   (FC)CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL                                           12,300             760             200             200             200
    (E)CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL                                      2,109,274         515,696          92,423          80,423          65,510
   (SP)DADE COUNTY, FL                                                         177,300          67,185           3,058           8,000           3,058
   (SP)DUVAL COUNTY, FL                                                        111,200          20,527           3,800           3,800           3,800
    (E)EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL                   74,792          14,351          20,525          20,525          15,525
    (E)HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FL                                     13,500  ..............           4,562  ..............  ..............
   (MP)JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE, FL AND GA (MAJOR R                 30,600          15,266           4,500           4,500           4,500
    (E)KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL                                                     224,800          64,300          20,000          20,000          16,000
   (SP)MANATEE COUNTY, FL                                                       43,600           5,898             200             200             200
    (N)MANATEE HARBOR, FL                                                       25,185           6,614          10,828          10,828           9,828
   (SP)MARTIN COUNTY, FL                                                        35,800           5,870           2,419           2,419           2,419
    (N)MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL                                                 49,059          20,620           6,591           6,591           6,591
    (N)PALM VALLEY BRIDGE, FL                                                   18,700           5,839           4,000           7,500           4,000
    (N)PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL                                                   25,449           2,621             706             706             706
   (SP)PINELLAS COUNTY, FL                                                     167,200          43,090           1,321           1,321           1,321
       ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL                                             ..............  ..............  ..............           4,000  ..............
       ST. LUCIE INLET, FL                                              ..............  ..............  ..............           5,000  ..............
       TAMPA HARBOR, FL                                                 ..............  ..............  ..............             300  ..............

                                   GEORGIA

   (MP)BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB)                                      33,700           3,024           2,455           2,455           2,455
    (N)LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA AND SC                                     3,167             671           1,500           1,500           1,500
       MAYO'S BAR LOCK AND DAM, GA                                               1,500  ..............  ..............  ..............             400
   (FC)OATES CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, GA (DEF CORR)                              11,208           9,536             332  ..............             332
   (MP)RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC                               619,570         601,852           2,666           2,666           2,666
   (MP)THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB)                        69,700          23,707           5,000           5,000           5,000

                                    HAWAII

   (FC)IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR)                            14,807           1,023             239             239             239
    (N)KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI                                     5,039           1,268           3,437           3,437           3,437
    (N)MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI                                                 11,446           3,499             325             325             325

                                   ILLINOIS

    (N)CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR)                   23,728           2,301           2,100           2,100           2,100
    (E)CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL                     2,130           1,400             400             400             400
   (SP)CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL                                                   170,071          45,319          19,192          19,192          18,192
   (FC)EAST ST LOUIS, IL                                                        37,861          28,643             900             900             900
       EAST ST LOUIS INTERIOR FLOOD CONTROL                             ..............  ..............  ..............             150  ..............
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH                 69,994          20,396           5,750           5,750           5,750
   (FC)LOVES PARK, IL                                                           21,000          12,985           4,010           4,010           4,010
   (FC)MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL                                      503,828          29,141           2,800           7,800           5,600
    (N)MELVIN PRICE LOCK AND DAM, IL AND MO                                    740,700         730,071           1,400           1,400           1,400
    (N)OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY                          1,000,000         429,016          38,142          38,142          53,142
    (E)UPPER MISS RVR SYSTEM ENV MGMT PROGRAM, IL, IA, MN, MO                  532,740         197,875          18,000          21,000          17,000

                                   INDIANA

   (FC)FORT WAYNE METROPOLITAN AREA, IN                                         35,991          34,903           1,088           1,088           1,088
    (N)INDIANA HARBOR, IN (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY)                          60,000           1,860           3,291           3,291           3,291
       INDIANA SHORELINE EROSION, IN                                    ..............  ..............  ..............           1,000  ..............
       INDIANAPOLIS CENTRAL WATERFRONT, IN                              ..............  ..............  ..............           7,000           4,000
   (FC)INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN                                    12,746           1,067             934             934             934
   (FC)LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN                                                134,509          70,566           5,343           8,843           5,343
   (FC)OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN                                    15,500  ..............           1,500  ..............  ..............
   (FC)PATOKA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB)                                             7,200           2,000           5,200           5,200           5,200

                                     IOWA

    (N)LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)                     24,600  ..............           3,210  ..............  ..............
    (N)LOCK AND DAM 12, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB)                     15,500           1,972           5,260           5,260           4,300
    (E)MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION, IA, NE, K                   84,500          51,523          12,000          12,000          10,000
   (FC)MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS AND MO                          140,518          99,956           4,400           4,400           4,650
   (FC)PERRY CREEK, IA                                                          45,400          32,064           7,178           7,178           7,178

                                    KANSAS

   (FC)ARKANSAS CITY, KS                                                        27,800           8,372           5,100           5,100           5,100

                                   KENTUCKY

   (MP)BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN                                 161,199         160,199           1,000           1,000           1,000
   (FC)DEWEY LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY)                                              14,700           5,788           3,832           3,832           3,832
    (N)KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY                              533,000          49,090          14,900          19,000          27,700
    (N)MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN                           268,000          35,356          14,000          18,000          14,000
   (FC)METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY                                  13,524           3,717           4,000           4,000           4,000
       SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY, KY                                ..............  ..............  ..............           4,000  ..............

                                  LOUISIANA

   (FC)COMITE RIVER, LA                                                        107,200           9,131          10,000          10,000          10,000
    (N)INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA                                  575,000          44,155          14,349          14,349          16,349
       GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA                                      ..............  ..............  ..............             500  ..............
    (N)J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA                                       1,893,651       1,714,647          18,040          21,040          18,040
   (FC)LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT                  525,000         401,564           3,100           8,100          10,000
   (FC)LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)                       80,000          73,534           1,414           2,414           1,414
       MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, LA                                ..............  ..............  ..............             500  ..............
    (N)MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, L                  176,000          25,766             719             719             719
   (FC)NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)                        173,000         145,078           1,800           1,800           1,800
   (FC)SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA                                                 399,000         168,343          47,260          47,260          69,000
   (FC)WEST BANK VICINITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LA                                   199,000          56,218           8,065           7,565           8,065

                                   MARYLAND

    (E)ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC                               12,000           8,049           3,951           3,951           3,951
   (SP)ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD                                                    16,900  ..............           2,500  ..............           1,500
   (SP)ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD                                          270,300          34,795             185             185             185
    (N)BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES AND CHANNELS, MD AND VA                      21,000             675           5,000  ..............  ..............
    (E)CHESAPEAKE BAY ENV RESTORATION AND PROTECTION, MD, VA                       900             292             608             608           1,058
       CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA                        ..............  ..............  ..............             500           4,000
    (E)POPLAR ISLAND, MD                                                       320,000          48,618          19,190          19,190          17,190

                                MASSACHUSETTS

    (N)CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, MA (MAJOR REHAB)                         31,400           4,350           8,600           8,600           8,600
   (FC)TOWN BROOK, QUINCY AND BRAINTREE, MA                                     32,850          32,750             100             100             100

                                  MINNESOTA

    (N)LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB)                      16,200           2,584           5,000           5,000           5,000
   (FC)MARSHALL, MN                                                              8,010           6,698           1,312           1,312           1,312
    (N)PINE RIVER DAM, CROSS LAKE, MN (DAM SAFETY)                              10,200           6,327           3,873           3,873           3,873

                                 MISSISSIPPI

       JACKSON COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, MS                                          20,000          19,200  ..............  ..............           2,000
    (N)PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS                                                    47,101          26,720           6,663           6,663           6,663
    (N)WOLF AND JORDAN RIVERS, MS                                                2,740           1,403           1,337           1,337           1,337
       PEARL RIVER VICINITY OF WALKIAH BLUFF, MS AND LA                          1,000  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,000

                                   MISSOURI

   (FC)BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO                                     216,000         170,092          10,500          10,500          14,500
   (FC)CAPE GIRARDEAU, JACKSON, MO                                              36,694          30,502           2,350           2,350           2,350
   (FC)MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO                               29,232          17,090           3,000           3,000           3,000
    (N)MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO                  274,327         192,971           6,500           6,500           6,500
   (FC)STE GENEVIEVE, MO                                                        34,532          20,337           6,000           6,000           6,000
   (MP)TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR (DAM SAFETY)                                  60,200          16,844           5,920           5,920           5,920

                                   NEBRASKA

   (FC)MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD                          21,000           3,523             300             300           1,800
   (FC)WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE                                             10,536           1,936           1,600           3,000           2,100

                                    NEVADA

   (FC)TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV                                       209,700          87,668          20,000          20,000          21,600

                                  NEW JERSEY

       BRIGANTINE INLET/GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET (ABSECON ISL)            ..............  ..............  ..............           5,000  ..............
   (SP)CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ                                     92,700          16,150             100             100             100
    (N)DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE                              224,000          20,101          29,756          29,756          26,756
   (SP)GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ                               393,000          31,529           5,100           5,100           5,100
    (N)NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY CHANN                 82,200           5,304           5,649          10,000           8,649
   (FC)PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N                   19,300           3,224           1,700           1,700           1,700
       PASSAIC RIVER STREAMBANK RESTORATION, NJ                         ..............  ..............  ..............           2,300           3,000
       RAMAPO RIVER AT MAHWAH, NJ                                       ..............  ..............  ..............             750  ..............
   (FC)RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ                                              11,700           6,098           2,717           2,717           2,717
   (FC)RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ                          295,600          30,475           4,000           4,000           4,000
   (SP)SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ                                      1,162,900         114,227           6,383           6,383           6,383

                                  NEW MEXICO

   (FC)ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM                                           66,000          12,631             900             900             900
   (FC)ALAMOGORDO, NM                                                           41,400           5,575           3,000           3,000           3,000
   (FC)LAS CRUCES, NM                                                            6,600           3,759           2,841           2,841           2,841
   (FC)MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE                   46,800           9,406             600             600             600
   (FC)RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE,                    62,300           5,065             600             600             600

                                   NEW YORK

    (N)ARTHUR KILL CHANNEL, HOWLAND HOOK MARINE TERMINAL, NY                   221,700           4,600           5,000  ..............  ..............
   (SP)ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT,                  101,000          14,942             500             500             500
   (SP)EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY,                   64,000          44,944           1,000           1,000           1,000
   (SP)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY                                    236,000          35,117             500           1,500             500
   (SP)FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY                                  573,100          53,424           3,000           3,000           3,000
    (N)KILL VAN KULL AND NEWARK BAY CHANNEL, NY AND NJ                         607,600         255,580          53,000          53,000          44,000
       NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY                                      ..............  ..............  ..............           3,000  ..............
       ONONDAGA LAKE, NY                                                ..............  ..............  ..............           5,000  ..............

                                NORTH CAROLINA

    (N)AIWW, REPLACEMENT OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGES, NC                         70,200          69,200           1,000           1,000           1,000
       BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC                                     ..............  ..............  ..............           4,200           4,200
   (SP)CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY, NC                                         193,970          24,036           2,000           2,000           2,000
       WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET, NC                        ..............  ..............  ..............             330  ..............
    (N)WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC                                                   248,100          30,660          40,600          40,600          33,600

                                 NORTH DAKOTA

   (FC)BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION, N                   40,129           9,482           4,700           4,700           6,000
   (FC)DEVILS LAKE EMERGENCY OUTLET, ND                                         76,600          11,600          24,000  ..............  ..............
   (MP)GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB)                           37,122          11,909           5,300           5,300           5,300
   (FC)GRAND FORKS, ND--EAST GRAND FORKS, MN                                   180,900          15,018          13,044          13,044          13,044
   (FC)HOMME LAKE, ND (DAM SAFETY)                                              15,900           4,183           8,000           8,000           8,000
   (FC)SHEYENNE RIVER, ND                                                       30,890          26,113           2,600           2,600           2,600

                                     OHIO

   (FC)BEACH CITY LAKE, MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH (DAM SAFETY                    3,500           2,603             897             897             897
       LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OH                                        ..............  ..............  ..............           1,000  ..............
   (FC)METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH                        16,913           4,531           3,024           3,024           3,024
   (FC)MILL CREEK, OH                                                          163,000          99,642             500             500             500
   (FC)WEST COLUMBUS, OH                                                        97,000          69,834           6,000          10,000          11,000

                                   OKLAHOMA

   (FC)SKIATOOK LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)                                            9,700             663           2,400           2,400           2,400
   (MP)TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)                                    39,800           9,135           4,500           4,500           4,500

                                    OREGON

   (MP)BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB)                 110,800          45,414           6,110           6,110           6,110
   (MP)COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA                    75,860          32,714           5,000           5,000           5,000
   (FC)ELK CREEK LAKE, OR                                                      176,900         109,854             500             500             500
   (FC)LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION, OR AND WA                    27,800          21,504             200             200             200
    (E)WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR                                 72,900           6,054           8,200           8,200           8,200

                                 PENNSYLVANIA

   (FC)JOHNSTOWN, PA (MAJOR REHAB)                                              32,500          21,552           7,000           7,000           7,000
    (N)LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA                        705,000         128,696          35,000          35,000          55,000
   (SP)PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT)                                   66,335          17,423             580             580             580
   (FC)SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA                                             10,575           3,320           4,300           4,300           4,300
       SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRON IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM           ..............  ..............  ..............          20,000  ..............
       WILLIAMSPORT, PA                                                 ..............  ..............  ..............             446  ..............
   (FC)WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING)                                      108,300          58,634          23,092          23,092          20,092

                                 PUERTO RICO

   (FC)ARECIBO RIVER, PR                                                        12,500           3,102           4,102           4,102           5,402
   (FC)PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR                                         430,300         388,179           9,590           9,590           9,590
   (FC)RIO DE LA PLATA, PR                                                      64,900           6,113           3,493           3,493           3,493
   (FC)RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PR                                                 150,700           2,713             743  ..............  ..............
   (FC)RIO NIGUA AT SALINAS, PR                                                  8,900           1,088             198  ..............  ..............
   (FC)RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR                                                    321,000          63,379          11,000          13,800          11,000
    (N)SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR                                                      26,400          18,408           6,940           6,940           6,940

                                SOUTH CAROLINA

    (N)CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC (DEEPENING AND WIDENING)                           98,444          46,249          16,227          16,227          14,227
       LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC                                    ..............  ..............  ..............           3,000  ..............

                                 SOUTH DAKOTA

   (FC)BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD                                         30,450           3,700           1,500           1,500           1,500
    (E)CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD                       108,000           2,286           4,000           4,000           4,000
   (MP)PIERRE, SD                                                               35,000           6,772           4,000           4,000           6,000

                                  TENNESSEE

    (E)BLACK FOX, MURFREE AND OAKLANDS SPRINGS WETLANDS, TN             ..............  ..............  ..............           1,000  ..............
       HAMILTON COUNTY, TN                                              ..............  ..............  ..............           1,500  ..............

                                    TEXAS

   (FC)BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                                                306,113          18,908           5,500           6,000           5,500
    (N)CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX                                                  27,378          20,425           6,104           6,104           6,104
   (FC)CLEAR CREEK, TX                                                          88,660          23,583           1,525           1,525           1,525
   (FC)EL PASO, TX                                                             116,300         106,550           5,200           5,200           5,200
    (N)GIWW, ARANSAS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, TX                               17,900          16,724           1,176           1,176           1,176
    (N)HOUSTON--GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX                              418,736         134,700          53,492          53,492          48,492
    (N)NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SALTWATER BARRIER, TX                       42,795           7,822           9,000           9,000           9,000
       RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX                             ..............  ..............  ..............           1,300  ..............
       RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, TX                                  ..............  ..............  ..............             900  ..............
   (FC)SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX                                     154,500         152,409             900             900             900
   (FC)SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX                                                 220,087          86,486          11,820          11,820          11,820

                                     UTAH

   (FC)UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UT                                                    9,660           2,309             800             800             800

                                   VIRGINIA

    (N)AIWW, BRIDGE AT GREAT BRIDGE, VA                                         24,054           7,639           8,492           8,492           8,492
       ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION, FRONT ROYAL, VA                       ..............  ..............  ..............           7,000  ..............
   (MP)JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB)                   62,300           1,201           4,000           4,000           4,000
    (N)NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA                             137,496          23,413             600             600             600
   (FC)ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA                           29,700           6,016           1,000           1,000           1,000
       VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION)                        ..............  ..............  ..............           5,000          18,500
   (SP)VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (REIMBURSEMENT)                               ..............  ..............  ..............           1,100           1,100

                                  WASHINGTON

    (E)COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR AND ID                         1,376,330         624,524          91,000          80,000          81,000
    (E)LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR                232,000         229,774           1,000           1,000           1,000
   (FC)MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA                                       198,400         115,417             710             710             710
   (FC)MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY)                                        80,918          78,918           2,000           2,000           2,000
   (MP)THE DALLES POWERHOUSE (UNITS 1-14), WA AND OR (MAJOR REH                101,000          15,062           7,000           7,000           7,000

                                WEST VIRGINIA

   (FC)BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)                                         115,800           4,620           6,300           3,300          10,000
   (FC)GREENBRIAR RIVER BASIN, WV                                               47,000           1,930  ..............           1,000           1,000
   (FC)LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V                1,853,766         726,712          12,100          32,000          16,200
    (N)LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV (MAJOR REHAB)                    22,200           2,510           1,800           1,800           1,800
    (N)MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV                                          313,000          33,802           6,500           6,500          10,200
    (N)ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH                      369,474         358,834           2,700           2,700           2,700
       SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA, WV                                       ..............  ..............  ..............           3,000  ..............
   (FC)TYGART LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY)                                              9,500           4,608           4,293           4,293           4,293
       WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV AND PA          ..............  ..............  ..............           3,000  ..............
    (N)WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV                               227,500         225,622             300             300             300

                                  WISCONSIN

       LAFARGE LAKE, KICKAPOO RIVER, WI                                 ..............  ..............  ..............           2,000           2,000

                                MISCELLANEOUS

       AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)                      ..............  ..............          10,000          14,500           9,000
       AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM                                    ..............  ..............           3,000           3,000           4,000
       BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204)                ..............  ..............           4,000           4,000           2,000
       DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM              ..............  ..............           3,000           3,000           7,000
       DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM                     ..............  ..............           5,000           5,000           5,000
       EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SEC. 14)          ..............  ..............           9,000           6,000           8,000
       EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION                                          ..............  ..............          19,200          19,200          19,200
       FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)                             ..............  ..............          25,000          30,000          32,000
       INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE                      ..............  ..............              45              45              45
       INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE                      ..............  ..............             185             185             185
       NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111)                      ..............  ..............             300             300             300
       NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107)                                ..............  ..............           7,000           9,000           9,500
       PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME           ..............  ..............          14,000          18,000          17,000
       RECREATION MODERNIZATION PROGRAM                                 ..............  ..............          27,000  ..............  ..............
       RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGA           ..............  ..............          20,000  ..............  ..............
       SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103)                      ..............  ..............           2,500           2,500           2,500
       SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECT (SECTION 208)                      ..............  ..............             200             600             200
       REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE AND CARRYOVER     ..............  ..............        -165,253        -218,967        -166,253
        BALANCES
                                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL                                ..............  ..............       1,346,000       1,378,430       1,361,449
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TYPE OF PROJECT:
           (N)  NAVIGATION
           (BE)  BEACH EROSION CONTROL
           (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL
           (MP)  MULTIPURPOSE, INCLUDING POWER

    Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, AR.--An appropriation of 
$34,000,000 is recommended for the Montgomery Point Lock and 
Dam, Arkansas project. This is an increase of $14,000,000 over 
the budget request and, while a significant increase, is still 
far below the amount needed to fund the project at an optimum 
level.
    Guadalupe River, CA.--The Committee recommendation for 
Construction, General includes $7,000,000 for the Guadalupe 
River, CA flood control project. This is an increase of 
$3,500,000 over the budget request and will allow the Corps to 
continue mitigation planning and implementation, and award 
construction contracts on additional phases of the project.
    Norco Bluffs, CA.--An amount of $3,225,000 is recommended 
for the Norco Bluffs, California project. The Committee is 
disappointed that the project will not be completed during the 
current year as expected. The funding recommended should, 
barring any unforseen complications, complete the project. The 
Committee is aware that unforseen work has caused the project 
cost to exceed the authorized limit, and, therefore, has 
included a provision in the bill to raise project cost ceiling 
in order that the project may be completed during fiscal year 
2001 without further delay.
    Sacramento River Bank Protection, CA.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $700,000 for the Sacramento River Bank 
Protection project in California. The $4,000,000 recommended 
will allow the Corps to advance completion of this important 
flood control project.
    Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, 
Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, DE.--An appropriation of 
$3,000,000 is provided for the Delaware Coast from Cape 
Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach 
shoreline protection project. The Committee understands that 
carryover fiscal year 2000 funding and the funding recommended 
herein will allow the Corps to execute a project cost sharing 
agreement with the non-Federal sponsor and proceed with the 
first construction contract.
    Central and Southern, Everglades, and Kissimmee River 
Projects, FL.--In light of the severe budget constraints, the 
Committee has had to make many difficult recommendations in 
developing the funding levels for fiscal year 2001. Confronted 
with a highly constrained budget environment and program 
imbalances put forth in the President's budget request, the 
Committee has recommended reductions to many important water 
resource projects and programs, including the Everglades, 
Kissimmee River and the Central and Southern projects. 
Additional non-Defense discretionary budgetary resources will 
be needed in future years if these projects are to proceed at 
or near the desired schedule.
    Mayo's Lock and Dam, GA.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $400,000 for the Corps to provide technical assistance 
for the reconstruction of the Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, GA 
project.
    Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, IA, NE, KS, 
and MO.--Due to constrained budget allocations, the Committee 
is only able to recommend $10,000,000 for the Missouri River 
Fish and Wildlife, IA, NE, KS and MO project. This action is 
taken without prejudice and does not indicate a diminution of 
support for the project. The Committee directs that the funding 
provided be prioritized to address critical habitat aimed at 
the recovery of endangered species designated by the Endangered 
Species Act.
    Chicago Shoreline, IL.--The Committee has provided 
$17,192,000 for the Chicago Shoreline project in Illinois. As 
stated earlier, due to a highly constrained budget environment 
and program imbalances put forth in the President's budget 
request, the Committee has had to make many difficult choices 
in developing the funding levels for fiscal year 2001. 
Additional non-Defense discretionary budgetary resources will 
be needed in future years if the project is to proceed at or 
near the desired schedule.
    Olmstead Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL and KY.--An 
appropriation of $53,142,000 is provided for the Olmstead Lock 
and Dam, Illinois project. The administration's budget request 
for fiscal year 2001 significantly under funded the 
construction needs and the Committee has, therefore, 
recommended an additional $15,000,000 in an effort to mitigate 
delays on this important facility on the Nation's inland 
waterway system. No funds are included for reimbursement of the 
Claims and Judgement Fund.
    White River, Indianapolis Central Waterfront, IN.--The 
Committee has recommended an appropriation of $4,000,000 for 
the Corps to continue construction on the White River, 
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana project. The Committee 
regrets that budgetary constraints do not allow funding at a 
more optimum level. Additional non-Defense discretionary 
budgetary resources will be needed in future years if the 
project is to proceed at or near the Corps' schedule.
    Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS and MO.--The 
Committee has provided an increase of $250,000 for the Corps to 
complete the General Reevaluation Report and to proceed with 
plans and specifications for the L-142, Jefferson City, MO 
feature of the Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS, and MO 
project.
    Kentucky Lock and Dam, KY.--An appropriation of $27,700,000 
is provided for the Kentucky Lock and Dam project in Kentucky 
to help mitigate delays as the result of the less than optimum 
funding level contained in the administration's budget request. 
As stated on many other projects, additional non-Defense 
discretionary budgetary resources will be needed in future 
years if the project is to proceed at or near the desired 
schedule.
    Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, LA.--Funding in the 
amount of $16,349,000 is recommended for the Inner Harbor 
Navigation Canal Lock project in Louisiana. The recommended 
appropriation provides the full budget request of $3,000,000 
for community impact activities. The Committee urges the Corps 
to continue construction of this project with the least 
possible disruption to the surrounding community. The Committee 
understands that the Corps of Engineers has finally determined 
a formula for the allocation of construction costs as between 
inland navigation and general cargo navigation. The Committee 
supports this allocation of costs and notes that the proposed 
formula is consistent with Committee direction to the Corps in 
fiscal year 2000 and the authorized cost sharing on the 
project.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--An appropriation of 
$18,040,000 is recommended to continue construction related to 
the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway project in Louisiana. The 
Committee is informed that the proposed location of the 
Regional Visitors Center in Shreveport and the expected public 
visitation has resulted in the demand for a level of service 
greater than originally anticipated. Therefore, the Committee 
has included language in the bill which would allow the use of 
available Construction, General funds in addition to those 
provided in Public Law 104-206 to complete design and 
construction of the visitors center at an estimated cost of 
$6,000,000.
    Southeast Louisiana, LA.--The Committee recommendation 
includes an appropriation of $69,000,000 for continued 
construction of the Southeast Louisiana flood protection 
project.
    Assateague Island, MD.--The Committee has provided 
$1,500,000 for the Assateague Island project in Maryland which 
Congress addressed in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill. 
In approving the project last year, the Congress provided for 
reimbursement by the National Park Service. The Committee 
understands, however, that Corps constructed jetties at Ocean 
City Inlet are disrupting the flow and supply of sediments 
available to replenish the shoreline at Assateague Island 
National Seashore. Given this, the Committee has included an 
additional $1,500,000 to continue the project and allow the 
Corps to proceed with initial sand placement.
    Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD and VA.--The Committee 
is aware that a healthy oyster population is essential to 
improving water quality and restoring the Chesapeake ecosystem 
as a whole. Further, the Committee understands that early data 
indicates that manmade three dimension reefs stocked with 
oyster spat show great promise in producing oysters that are 
``disease tolerant'', and that these protected areas are 
reproducing and building up adjacent oyster beds. In order to 
increase the number of oyster beds and strengthen the Federal 
involvement in this program, the Committee has recommended an 
appropriation of $4,000,000 to continue this program in fiscal 
year 2001. The funds provided are to be used to construct reefs 
and related clean shell substrate for man-made three 
dimensional oyster reefs in the Chesapeake Bay and its 
tributaries in Maryland and Virginia which are preserved as 
permanent sanctuaries, consistent with the recommendations of 
the scientific consensus document on the Chesapeake Bay oyster 
restoration dated June 1999.
    Pearl River, Vicinity of Walkiah Bluff, MS and LA.--The 
Committee is aware of emergency repairs to the weir at the 
Pearl River in the vicinity of Walkiah Bluff in Mississippi and 
Louisiana. These repairs were the result of design problems and 
were beyond the scope of the work originally included as a part 
of the project cooperation agreement. As a result, the non-
Federal sponsor should not have been required to share in the 
cost of the emergency repairs. Therefore, the Corps is directed 
to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for their share of the 
construction costs associated with emergency repairs in an 
amount not to exceed $1,000,000.
    Blue River Channel, Kansas City, MO.--The Committee has 
provided $14,500,000, an increase of $4,500,000 over the budget 
request, for the Corps to expedite work on the Blue River 
Channel, Kansas City, Missouri flood control project.
    Missouri National Recreation River, NE and SD.--The 
Committee has provided $1,800,000 for the Missouri National 
Recreational River, NE and SD project. This is $1,500,000 over 
the budget request for fiscal year 2001 to expedite activities 
related to the Ponca restoration project.
    Delaware River Channel Deepening, NJ, PA, & DE.--Due to 
constrained budget allocations, the Committee is only able to 
recommend $26,756,000 for the Delaware River Channel Deepening, 
NJ project. This action is taken without prejudice and does not 
indicate a diminution of support for the project.
    Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.--The Committee has 
provided $21,600,000 for the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes 
project in Nevada to advance completion of this important flood 
control project. In an effort to reduce alkali silica (ASR) 
reactivity on concrete, the Corps of Engineers is urged to 
consider incorporating the use of lithium salts, or other such 
means, if appropriate, in test sections of the concrete to 
demonstrate the effectiveness of these methods in ameliorating 
the effects of ASR. The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,600,000 for reimbursement of work performed by project non-
Federal sponsor in accordance with Section 211 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Devils Lake Emergency Outlet, ND.--The Committee is aware 
that the budget for fiscal year 2001 included a request of 
$24,000,000 for construction of an outlet at Devils Lake in 
North Dakota. Because of delays in proceeding with required 
feasibility, and engineering and design work which is expected 
to take a minimum of 18 months to complete, construction will 
not be able to commence in fiscal year 2001 as originally 
envisioned. Therefore, the Committee has not provided the 
funding requested for construction. This action is recommended 
without prejudice in recognition that Corps has authority to 
use up to $10,000,000 of previously appropriated funds to 
initiate construction of an outlet once certain conditions 
mandated by Congress are met.
    Flints Pond, Hollis, NH.--The Committee directs the Corps 
to use $75,000 of available Construction general funds to 
initiate and complete a decision document for the removal of 
silt and aquatic growth from Flints Pond, Hollis, NH.
    West Columbus, OH.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $11,000,000 over the budget request for the West 
Columbus, Ohio flood control project to allow the Corps to 
continue construction on a more optimum schedule and to 
mitigate delays due to the inadequate funding request proposed 
in the administration's budget for fiscal year 2001.
    Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, PA.--The 
Committee has recommended $55,000,000 to continue construction 
of the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River navigation 
project in Pennsylvania. While providing an increase of 
$20,000,000 over the budget request, budget constraints do not 
allow the Committee to reach the capability level of the Corps 
which is significantly higher than the amount recommended 
herein. Additional non-Defense discretionary budgetary 
resources will be needed in future years if the project is to 
proceed at or near the desired construction schedule.
    Presque Isle, PA.--The full budget request of $580,000 is 
recommended for the Presque Isle, PA project. The Committee 
notes that Lake Erie is experiencing the lowest lake levels 
since the 1960's and, as a result, annual sand nourishment 
allocations necessary to replenish Presque Isle State Park 
beaches in Erie County, PA have been reduced substantially. 
Efficiencies in delivery, reductions in cost, and timely 
completion are the primary goals in the ongoing beach 
nourishment program at Presque Isle State Park. The Park's 
North Pier, which can be used to stockpile sand for use in 
future years, will play a vital role in meeting these goals. 
The Committee believes that the Corps of Engineers should make 
available any surplus project funds from fiscal years 2000 and 
2001 for the improvement and maintenance of the North Pier at 
Presque Isle State Park as appropriate.
    Wyoming Valley, PA.--Due to constrained budget allocations, 
the Committee is only able to recommend $18,092,000 for the 
Wyoming Valley, PA project. This action is taken without 
prejudice and does not indicate a diminution of support for the 
project.
    Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection, VA.--An appropriation 
of $18,500,000 is recommended to continue construction 
activities on the Virginia Beach, Hurricane Protection project 
in Virginia. Given the current budgetary constraints and the 
fact that this project is nearly completed, the Committee urges 
the Secretary of the Army and the administration to seek 
opportunities to complete the Virginia Beach project in fiscal 
year 2001 if at all possible. To this end, the Corps is 
directed to consider allowing the city to use sand that will be 
available from the deepening of a nearby channel which would be 
less expensive for all parties, to review industry practices 
and to schedule the work to maximize potential savings from 
bidding efficiency, and to reprogram additional funding to the 
project in fiscal year 2001 if the Corps, based on bids for the 
work, finds it possible to complete sand placement.
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation, WA and OR.--The Committee 
recommends $79,000,000 to continue the Columbia River Fish 
Mitigation project and $2,000,000 to address potential flooding 
in Lewiston, Idaho, as a result of a weakened section of the 
Federal levee embankment along the Snake River. This problem is 
the direct result of the Corps of Engineers drawing the Lower 
Granite Reservoir down in 1992 for a salmon-related 
experiments. The Committee therefore directs that necessary 
repairs to the levee embankment be begun immediately. The 
recommended level of funding is necessary due to the severe 
budget constraints. In addition, no part of any appropriation 
contained herein shall be used to begin Phase II of the John 
Day drawdown study or to start a study of the drawdown at 
McNary Dam. The amount recommended includes funding over the 
budget request for avian control studies.
    Greenbrier River Basin, WV.--An appropriation of $1,000,000 
is recommended to continue the Greenbrier River Basin project 
in West Virginia. The additional funding will be used to 
continue detailed design, complete the detailed project report, 
and complete NEPA compliance for the Marlington, WV local 
protection project.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland River, WV-KY-VA.--The Committee has provided a total 
of $16,200,000 for the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy 
River and Upper Cumberland River project.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $1,500,000 for 
the Upper Mingo County, West Virginia, element; $1,600,000 for 
the Kermit, Lower Mingo County (Kermit), WV, element; $400,000 
for the Wayne County, WV, element; and $600,000 for the 
McDowell County, WV, element.
    Finally, $11,500,000 is provided for the Grundy, VA, 
element.
    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 
2001. 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 directs the Corps to place a higher 
priority on actual plant harvesting and eradication through 
funding provided in this account. Finally, in an effort to 
maximize the use of the limited Federal funding, the Committee 
recommends that harvesting and eradication be undertaken only 
where a local sponsor agrees to provide at least 50 percent of 
the cost of the work.
    The Committee recommendation includes $400,000 for aquatic 
weed control at Lake Champlain in Vermont. The Committee 
recommendation also included $250,000, to be matched by an 
equal amount by the State of South Carolina for aquatic plant 
control activities in that State.
    Dam Safety and Seepage Stability Correction Program.--The 
Committee has recommended an appropriation of $7,000,000 for 
the Dam Safety and Seepage Stability Correction Program, an 
increase of $4,0000,000 over the budget request. While the 
Committee prefers not to earmark funding for this program thus 
allowing the Corps of Engineers the flexibility to respond to 
the greatest need based on the potential risk to life and 
property, the Corps' attention is directed to the need for 
repairs to the Mississinewa Lake, IN and Waterbury Dam, VT 
projects which have been brought to the Committee's attention.
    Emergency streambank and shoreline protection, (sec. 14).--
The Committee has included $8,000,000 for the section 14, 
emergency streambank and shoreline erosion protection program.
    The Committee recommendation includes $600,000 for the Lake 
Michigan Center, Muskegon, MI project; $40,000 to initiate the 
planning and design analysis for the Belle Isle South Shore, 
Detroit, MI project; $40,000 to initiate the planning and 
design analysis for the Detroit River Shoreline, MI project 
which addresses erosion from Riverfront Towers to the 
Renaissance Center; $80,000, subject to a request by a non-
Federal sponsor, to initiate and complete a planning and design 
analysis for the Tioga County, PA project; $780,000 to initiate 
and complete construction of the Dayton Pike Bridge, North 
Chickamauga Creek, TN project; $100,000 to initiate and 
complete construction of the Pistol Creek, Marysville, TN 
project, and $304,000 for the Bogachiel, WA project.
    Small navigation projects (sec. 107).--The Committee has 
recommended an appropriation of $9,500,000 for small navigation 
projects under the section 107 program. The recommendation 
includes $2,500,000 to initiate and complete construction of 
the Port Hueneme, CA project; and $205,000 to complete the 
feasibility phase of the Westport River, MA project if 
determined to be in the Federal interest.
    The Committee recommendation also includes $200,000 for the 
Lake Shore Park, City of Milwaukee, WI navigation project. In 
order to expedite construction of this project, the Committee 
urges the Corps of Engineers to consider using the feasibility 
and other study documents and designs developed by the State of 
Wisconsin.
    Small flood control projects (sec. 205).--The Committee 
recommendation for section 205 small flood control projects is 
$32,000,000.
    The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to initiate 
and complete a detailed project report, and initiate the 
feasibility phase of the Mare Island, CA project; $203,000 for 
the Coyote Creek at Rock Springs, CA project to continue the 
feasibility phase; $100,000 to complete the detailed project 
report for the City of Folsom, Humbug and Willow Creeks, CA 
project; $490,000 to initiate and complete plans and 
specifications, and to initiate and complete construction of 
the St. Joe River at St. Maries, ID; $100,000 to continue the 
feasibility phase of the Coeur d'Alene River at Cataldo, ID 
project; $130,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the 
Weiser River, ID project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility 
phase of the Spy Run Creek, IN project; $100,000 to initiate 
plans and specifications for the Montevideo, MN project; 
$900,000 to complete plans and specifications for the 
Breckenridge, MN project; $450,000 to complete the feasibility 
phase and initiate plans and specifications for the Ada, MN 
project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility phase of the 
Yellowstone River at Glendive, MT project; $100,000 to initiate 
the feasibility phase of the Tongue and Yellowstone Rivers at 
Miles City, MT project; $500,000 to initiate construction of 
the Mill Brook, Highland Park, NJ project; $200,000 to initiate 
plans and specifications of the Poplar Brook, Monmouth, NJ 
project; $25,000 to complete the feasibility phase of the Tawny 
Run Creek, Springdale, PA project; $175,000 to complete the 
feasibility phase of the Erwin, TN project; and $1,500,000 to 
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of 
the Snoqualmie River at Snoqualmie, WA project.
    The Committee is aware that an error during dredging of the 
Cedar River in Washington has lead to significant environmental 
impacts and that the Corps of Engineers has accepted 
responsibility for the over dredging mistake. Further, the 
Committee understands that the estimated mitigation costs of 
$300,000 raises the cost of the project over Federal limit for 
Section 205 projects. In order to ensure that the local sponsor 
is not adversely impacted by the Federal mistake, the Committee 
has included a provision in the bill to provide for 
reimbursement for mitigation costs incurred by the City of 
Renton, WA as a result of the over dredging of the Corps of 
Engineers.
    Aquatic ecosystem restoration (sec. 206).--The Committee 
has recommended an appropriation of $9,000,000 for section 206 
aquatic ecosystem restoration projects for fiscal year 2000.
    The recommended funding level includes $350,000 to complete 
the feasibility phase of the Hayden Diversion, Steamboat 
Springs, CO project; $300,000 for the Lake Natoma, Highway 50 
Pond, CA project; $352,000 to initiate plans and specifications 
and construction of the Comite River at Hooper Road, LA 
project; $400,000 plus $80,000 of carryover funds to complete 
the feasibility phase and initiate plans and specifications and 
construction of the Lake St. Clair, Metropolitan Beach, MI 
project; $200,000 for environmental restoration studies outside 
the superfund site, particularly tributaries of the Kalamazoo 
River within Kalamazoo County, MI; $65,000 for Carson River 
Watershed Bank Protection, NV, to initiate and complete the 
Preliminary Restoration Plan, and to initiate the Environmental 
Restoration Report; $65,000 for Steamboat Creek, Washoe County, 
NV to initiate and complete the Preliminary Restoration Plan, 
and to initiate the Environmental Restoration Report; Little 
Sugar Creek, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, NC, $315,000 to 
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction; 
$286,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the Springfield 
Millrace, OR project; $1,300,000 to complete plans and 
specifications and initiate construction of the Nine Mile Run, 
Pittsburgh, PA project; $100,000 to initiate and complete plans 
and specifications for the Lonsdale Drive-In Restoration, RI 
project; $500,000 to initiate and complete plans and 
specifications for the Upper Jordan River restoration project; 
$500,000 to complete the environmental restoration report and 
initiate plans and specifications for the West Jordan, UT 
project; $100,000 to initiate the environmental restoration 
report for the Winooski River, VT project; $150,000 to complete 
the environmental restoration report and related activities for 
the Salmon Creek, WA project.
    The Committee understands that there are sufficient 
carryover funds to allow the Corps to continue work on the West 
Lafayette, LA project.
    The Committee funding recommendation supports the Corps 
continued activities to evaluate the disposition of the John P. 
Grace Memorial Bridge and the Silas N. Pearman Bridge as part 
of the section 206 program.
    Projects modifications for improvement of the environment 
(sec. 1135).--The Committee recommendation includes $17,000,000 
for section 1135 Project Modification for the Improvement of 
the Environment Program.
    The recommendation includes $2,000,000 to complete 
construction of the Pine Flat Turbine Bypass, CA project; 
$750,000 for the St. Louis, MO urban habitat restoration 
project; $167,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the 
Rahway River Environmental Restoration, NJ project; and 
$100,000 to improve the habitat of the Silvery Minnow in the 
Rio Grande River between San Acacia and Elephant Butte Dam.

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

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $309,416,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     309,000,000
House allowance.........................................     323,350,000
Committee recommendation................................     324,450,000

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

                                          CORPS OF ENGINEERS--FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total Federal    Allocated to     Current year                         House         Committee
                    Project title                           cost             date          allocation    Budget estimate     allowance    recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

SURVEYS:
    GENERAL STUDIES:
        ALEXANDRIA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO.........          3,150              619              519              750             750             750
        DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA...............          3,500              500              275            1,100           1,100           1,100
        SPRING BAYOU, LA.............................          2,600               96               96              100             100             100
        COLDWATER RIVER BASIN ABOVE ARKABUTLA LAKE,            1,500   ...............  ...............             350             350             350
         MS..........................................
        COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE,            2,100   ...............  ...............             100   ..............            100
         MS..........................................
        MEMPHIS METRO AREA, TN AND MS................          2,075              419              416              657             657             657
        BAYOU METO BASIN, AR.........................        125,000            5,717            1,917            6,500           6,500           6,500
        MORGANZA, LA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO...........         88,400              955              955            2,000           2,000           2,000
        REELFOOT LAKE, TN AND KY.....................         20,152              432              430              318             368             368
        WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN......................         11,765              309              309              216             216             216
    COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA...............  ..............  ...............  ...............             435             435             435
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS...............  ..............  ...............  ...............          12,526          12,476          12,576
                                                      ==================================================================================================

                     CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN...      3,697,000        2,566,817           35,991           35,690          35,690          35,690
FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR..          9,100            4,365              469            2,110           2,110           2,110
GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR.............................        208,000           17,542            2,875           22,800          22,800          17,800
HELENA AND VICINITY, AR..............................          8,380            4,711            1,592            2,450           2,450           2,450
L'ANGUILLE RIVER BASIN, AR...........................         15,100            2,899               96              750             750             750
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND       2,117,000          878,478           28,647           40,621          37,621          42,483
 TN..................................................
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO..........................        389,000          369,028            4,682            3,195           4,195           3,195
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA...............        184,000           80,883            7,163           10,000          10,000          10,000
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA................................      1,870,000          870,637           21,011           26,000          26,000          26,000
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LA...............         19,500           10,978            8,595            5,500           5,500           5,500
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, LA AND MS.         74,600            7,940               96              100             100             100
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.........................         99,500           86,653            9,933            5,000           5,000           5,000
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA................        168,310          127,338            8,529            2,330           2,330           2,330
YAZOO BASIN:                                              (1,125,294)        (429,975)         (16,830)         (11,195)        (26,195)        (11,195)
    BACKWATER PUMP, MS...............................        190,343           11,804              905              500             500           1,000
    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS..........................        110,000           94,622            2,998            3,500           3,500           4,500
    DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL, MS................        277,953          238,852           19,101   ...............         15,000           8,000
    MAIN STEM, MS....................................        199,543           34,605               19               25              25              25
    REFORMULATION UNIT, MS...........................         32,408           28,560            1,499              300             300             300
    TRIBUTARIES, MS..................................        250,000          107,545              325               84              84              84
    UPPER YAZOO PROJECT, MS..........................        343,000          152,839           11,084            6,786           6,786          13,700
ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO...........         59,609           14,608            6,360              700           5,000           3,500
NONCONNAH CREEK, FLOOD CONTROL FEATURE, TN AND MS....         17,925           12,842            2,388            2,000           2,000           2,000
WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN.......................        147,000           54,050              290              500             500             500
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION.........................  ..............  ...............  ...............         170,941         188,241         187,017
                                                      ==================================================================================================

                     MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN...  ..............  ...............  ...............          58,954          55,954          58,954
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR...................  ..............  ...............  ...............             421             421             421
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR....................  ..............  ...............  ...............             442             442             442
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR.................  ..............  ...............  ...............             407             407             407
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR.................  ..............  ...............  ...............              10              10              10
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND   ..............  ...............  ...............           6,160           6,160          10,260
 TN..................................................
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO..........................  ..............  ...............  ...............           6,775           7,775           8,775
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA.....  ..............  ...............  ...............           2,384           2,384           2,384
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR............................  ..............  ...............  ...............           1,070           1,070           1,070
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL....................  ..............  ...............  ...............              45              45              45
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY....................  ..............  ...............  ...............              25              25              25
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA...............  ..............  ...............  ...............           1,499           1,499           1,499
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           9,482           9,482           9,482
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA..................  ..............  ...............  ...............             210             210             210
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA...................  ..............  ...............  ...............              56              56              56
BONNET CARRE, LA.....................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           1,340           1,340           1,340
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA....................  ..............  ...............  ...............             389             389             389
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA...............  ..............  ...............  ...............           5,739           5,739           5,739
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.........................  ..............  ...............  ...............             916             916             916
OLD RIVER, LA........................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           4,720           4,720           4,720
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA................  ..............  ...............  ...............           3,048           3,048           3,048
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS................................  ..............  ...............  ...............             626             626             626
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS....................  ..............  ...............  ...............             193             193             193
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS.................................  ..............  ...............  ...............             480             480             480
YAZOO BASIN:                                           ..............  ...............  ...............         (24,185)        (28,185)        (24,185)
    ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS...............................  ..............  ...............  ...............           6,242           7,242           4,265
    BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS..........................  ..............  ...............  ...............             137             137           4,500
    ENID LAKE, MS....................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           3,376           4,376           4,214
    GREENWOOD, MS....................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           1,007           1,007           1,007
    GRENADA LAKE, MS.................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           4,232           5,232           4,232
    MAIN STEM, MS....................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           1,254           1,254           1,254
    SARDIS LAKE, MS..................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           5,180           6,180           5,180
    TRIBUTARIES, MS..................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           1,162           1,162           1,162
    WILL M WHITTINGTON AUXILIARY CHANNEL, MS.........  ..............  ...............  ...............             358             358             358
    YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS.........................  ..............  ...............  ...............             431             431             431
    YAZOO CITY, MS...................................  ..............  ...............  ...............             806             806             806
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO....................  ..............  ...............  ...............             202             202             202
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO..................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           7,000           7,000           7,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN....................  ..............  ...............  ...............             113             113             113
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN....................  ..............  ...............  ...............           1,085           1,085           1,085
MAPPING..............................................  ..............  ...............  ...............           1,129           1,129           1,129
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL, MAINTENANCE..........................  ..............  ...............  ...............         322,572         341,822         348,022
                                                      ==================================================================================================
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.......  ..............  ...............  ...............         -13,572         -18,472         -23,572
                                                      ==================================================================================================
      TOTAL, FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND      ..............  ...............  ...............         309,000         323,350         324,450
       TRIBUTARIES...................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF PROJECT:
    (N)  NAVIGATION
    (FC)  FLOOD CONTROL

    The Committee believes that it is essential to provide 
adequate resources and funding to the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in 
flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made, 
considerable work remains to be done for the protection and 
economic development of the rich national resources in the 
Valley. The Committee expects the additional funds to be used 
to advance ongoing studies, initiate new studies, and advance 
important construction and maintenance work. In conjunction 
with efforts to optimize use of the additional funding 
provided, the Committee expects adjustments in lower priority 
activities and non-critical work in order to maximize the 
public benefit within the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
program.
    Lower Red River, South Bank Levees, LA.--The Committee is 
aware that the Lower Red River, South Bank Levee and the Bayou 
Rapides drainage structure and pumping plant, have served to 
contain flows and reduce interior flooding from high river 
stages on the Red River. The current age and badly deteriorated 
condition of the structure threatens the integrity of the Lower 
Red River, South Bank Levee and failure of the structure could 
inundate approximately 60 percent of the City of Alexandria, 
LA. Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 
expeditiously initiate construction of the replacement 
structure and further directs the Corps to budget for 
subsequent funding, through completion of the replacement 
structure, through the maintenance category of the MR&T 
appropriations.
    Greenville Inner Harbor, MS.--The Committee is aware that 
Section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
provided for the Federal maintenance dredging of the Greenville 
Inner Harbor Channel in Mississippi following the determination 
that such maintenance is economically justified, 
environmentally acceptable, and that the channel was 
constructed in accordance with applicable permits and 
appropriate engineering design standards. Therefore, the 
Secretary of the Army is directed to complete a feasibility 
study in accordance with the provisions of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 utilizing available funding under the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries appropriations.
    Reelfoot Lake, TN and KY.--The Committee is aware of the 
concerns of Kentucky interests regarding potential flooding 
impacts. The Committee understands that local interests believe 
that operation of the proposed new spillway would increase the 
severity of flooding of adjacent lake lands over that which 
occurs with the existing spillway and operation. The Committee, 
therefore, has included a total of $368,000 for preconstruction 
engineering and design of which $50,000 is for the Corps to 
perform an analysis to determine and identify any potential 
flooding impacts with the new spillway and its operation.
    Mississippi River Channel Improvement.--The Committee is 
aware of the critical importance of navigation and commerce to 
the Nation, and that the lower Mississippi River is vital to 
our Nation, serving as the primary commerce link between our 
Nation's heartland and foreign and domestic markets. The 
Committee understands that a 12-foot channel is authorized and 
currently exists for much of the time below Cairo, Illinois. 
The Committee urges the Corps to use available funds within the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries appropriation, to evaluate 
the current availability of a 12-foot navigation channel and 
the feasibility of ensuring a dependable 12-foot navigation 
channel on the lower Mississippi River below Cairo, Illinois.
    Mississippi River Levees.--The Committee recommendation 
includes additional funding to advance completion of 
construction of high priority, critical levee and other flood 
control facilities within the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
program.
    Yazoo basin, Big Sunflower River, MR&T.--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 for the Corps to expedite construction of 
various features of the Big Sunflower River, MS, project.
    Yazoo basin, demonstration erosion control, MR&T.--An 
appropriation of $8,000,000 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 construction 
of 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 2001 and for all future work as 
required for completion of the total program.
    St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, MO.--The Committee 
has included $3,500,000 for construction activities on the St. 
Johns and New Madrid Floodway in Missouri, including additional 
funding to initiate construction of the New Madrid pumping 
station.
    Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River, MS.--An appropriation of 
$4,500,000 is recommended for the Big Sunflower River 
maintenance portion of the Yazoo Basin feature. The Committee 
understands the need to restore channel capacity in order to 
alleviate flooding caused by deterioration of the channel as 
originally constructed. Therefore, the Committee has provided 
an additional $2,000,000 for the Corps to continue the 
maintenance on the Big Sunflower river 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 and other problems.

                   operation and maintenance, general

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $1,853,618,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   1,854,000,000
House allowance.........................................   1,854,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,862,471,000

    The Committee recommendation for Operation and Maintenance 
activities of the Corps of Engineers totals $1,862,471,000 for 
fiscal year 2001.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:

                             CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Budget           House         Committee
                          Project title                              estimate        allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             ALABAMA

ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY,  AL...................           1,100           1,100           1,100
ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL........................................           5,355           5,355           5,355
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL..............................................           1,999           1,999           1,999
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL..........................          19,204          20,204          20,704
DAUPHIN ISLAND BAY, AL..........................................              60              60              60
DOG AND FOWL RIVERS, AL.........................................              66              66              66
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL..................................           4,734           4,734           4,734
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL...............................              50              50              50
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM ``BILL'' DANNELLY LA........           4,999           4,999           4,999
MOBILE HARBOR, AL...............................................          18,665          18,665          22,665
MOBILE AREA DIGITAL MAPPING, AL.................................  ..............             150  ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL...................................             350             350             350
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL.................................           4,962           4,962           4,962
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL.............................             120             120             120
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS........................          23,547          24,547          24,547
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA.........................           7,373           7,373           7,373

                             ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK............................................           1,777           1,777           1,777
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK...........................................           1,364           1,364           1,364
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK...........................................             423             423             423
HOMER HARBOR, AK................................................             191             191             191
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK...............................              35              35              35
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK............................................             186             186             186
NOME HARBOR, AK.................................................             386             386             386
PETERSBURG HARBOR, AK...........................................             394             394             394
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK...................................             512             512             512
WRANGELL NARROWS, AK............................................           2,438           2,438           3,838

                             ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ..................................................           1,166           1,166           1,166
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ...............................              69              69              69
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ............................................           1,186           1,186           1,186
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ.............................              74              74              74
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ...........................................             168             168             168

                            ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR.................................................           4,520           4,520           4,520
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR...............................           5,758           5,758           5,758
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR..........................................           1,200           1,200           1,200
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR............................................           4,565           4,565           4,565
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR.....................................           5,937           5,937           5,937
DEGRAY LAKE, AR.................................................           4,218           4,218           4,218
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR................................................           1,058           1,058           1,058
DIERKS LAKE, AR.................................................             988             988             988
GILLHAM LAKE, AR................................................             929             929             929
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR...........................................           5,933           5,933           5,933
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR..............................             304             304             304
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR...............................             294             294             294
MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR............          19,988          19,988          19,988
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR...............................................           1,602           1,602           1,602
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR...................................           3,604           3,604           3,604
NIMROD LAKE, AR.................................................           1,416           1,416           1,416
NORFORK LAKE, AR................................................           3,626           3,626           3,626
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR..............................................             419             419             419
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA............................           6,402           6,402           6,402
OZARK--JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR.............................           4,072           4,072           4,072
WHITE RIVER, AR.................................................           2,258           2,258           2,258
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR............................................             125             125             125

                           CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA............................................           1,854           1,854           1,854
BODEGA BAY, CA..................................................  ..............             200  ..............
BUCHANAN DAM, H V EASTMAN LAKE, CA..............................           1,580           1,580           1,580
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA......................................           3,000           3,000           3,000
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA...........................           3,403           3,403           3,403
CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA........................................  ..............             500  ..............
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA...................           4,437           4,437           4,687
FARMINGTON DAM, CA..............................................             313             313             313
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA....................................           1,616           1,616           1,616
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA.....................................           4,710           4,710           4,710
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA...............................             843             843             843
ISABELLA LAKE, CA...............................................             793             793             793
JACK D. MALTESTER CHANNEL (SAN LEANDRO MARINA), CA..............  ..............           1,500  ..............
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBOR MODEL, CA........................             170             170             170
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA.............................           3,910           3,910           3,910
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA............................           3,956           3,956           3,956
MARINA DEL REY, CA..............................................           5,335           5,335           5,335
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA.......................................             288             288             288
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA............................................             251             251             251
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA............................................             170             170           1,170
MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA.........................................  ..............             700  ..............
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA..............................................           1,778           1,778           1,778
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA........................           1,135           1,135           1,135
NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, CA..........................................              40              40              40
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA..............................................           8,118           8,118           8,118
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA............................................           1,535           2,035           1,535
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA..............................................           2,248           2,248           2,248
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA...................................           1,256           1,256           1,256
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA.........................................  ..............             400  ..............
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA.............................................           5,774           5,774           5,774
SACRAMENTO RIVER +30 FOOT PROJECT), CA..........................           2,037           2,037           2,037
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA...........           1,113           1,113           1,113
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA......................             163             163             163
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA....................           2,382           2,382           2,382
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA.............  ..............             200  ..............
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY (DRIFT REMOVAL), CA................           2,000           2,000           2,000
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA........................................           2,573           2,573           2,573
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA...........................................           2,028           2,028           2,028
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA.......................................           3,086           3,086           3,086
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA........................................           1,615           1,615           1,615
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA.............................           1,153           1,153           1,153
SUCCESS LAKE, CA................................................           1,898           1,898           1,898
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA..........................................           3,117           3,117           3,117
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA...................................           1,659           1,659           1,659
VENTURA HARBOR, CA..............................................           2,240           3,440           2,240
YUBA RIVER, CA..................................................              74              74              74

                            COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO.............................................             425             425             425
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO..............................................           1,568           1,568           1,568
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO...........................................             707             707             707
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO...............................              67              67              67
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO.......................................           1,543           1,543           1,543
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO.............................             209             209             209
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO...............................................             619             619             619

                           CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT.............................................             309             309             309
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT........................................             399             399             399
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT..........................................             269             269             269
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT..............................................             819             819             819
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT.......................................             335             335             335
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT.......................................             344             344             344
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT..................................             311             311             311
THOMASTON DAM, CT...............................................             581             581             581
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT..........................................             506             506             506

                            DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D..........          19,707          14,757          14,707
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D..........             433             433             433
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE...........................................           3,217           3,217           3,217

                      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS (DRIFT REMOVAL), DC................             910             910             910
POTOMAC RIVER BELOW WASHINGTON, DC..............................             235             235             235
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC...........................................              38              38              38

                             FLORIDA

AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST JOHNS RIVER, FL, GA, SC, NC &...........           1,660           1,660           1,660
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................           7,625           7,625           7,625
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL................................          10,558          10,558          10,558
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL.................................           1,000           1,000           1,000
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL...........................................           2,705           2,705           2,705
FORT PIERCE HARBOR, FL..........................................           1,051           1,051           1,051
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL...............................             100             100             100
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE R TO ANCLOTE R,...........             147             147             147
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI,  FL...............           4,035           4,035           4,035
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL.........................................           7,755           7,755           7,755
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL AND GA.........           5,855           5,855           5,855
MANATEE HARBOR, FL..............................................           3,080           3,080           3,080
MIAMI HARBOR, FL................................................           1,323           1,323           1,323
MIAMI RIVER, FL.................................................  ..............           4,000  ..............
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL.........................................           5,811           5,811           5,811
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL...........................................           4,577           4,577           4,577
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL..........................................              50              50              50
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL............................................  ..............           2,000  ..............
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL.........................................              46              46              46
PORT ST. JOE HARBOR, FL.........................................  ..............             500  ..............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL...................................             600             600             600
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL...................................           3,340           3,340           5,340
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL.............................              50              50              50
ST PETERSBURG HARBOR, FL........................................           3,280           6,580           3,280
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................           6,308           6,308           6,308
WITHLACOOCHIE RIVER, FL.........................................              35              35              35

                             GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA..............................................           4,520           4,520           5,520
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL &..........           5,055           6,055           5,055
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA..............................           2,460           2,460           2,460
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................           5,271           5,271           5,271
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA...........................           7,275           7,275           7,275
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA........................................           7,489           7,489           7,489
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC........................................          11,875          11,875          11,875
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA...............................             100             100             100
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC................................          10,585          10,585          10,585
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC.......................           6,190           6,190           6,190
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.............................................          13,869          14,369          13,869
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA................................             650             650             650
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL..............................           3,977           4,977           3,977

                             HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI........................................             153             153             153
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI...............................             165             165             165
KAHULUI HARBOR, HI..............................................           1,296           1,296           1,296
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI...................................             706             706             706

                              IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID............................................           2,291           2,291           2,291
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID..................................           2,689           2,689           2,689
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID...............................              73              73              73
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID.............................................           1,206           1,206           1,206
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID.............................             332             332             332

                            ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN.............................           4,758           4,758           4,758
CARLYLE LAKE, IL................................................           5,112           5,112           5,112
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL..............................................           2,762           2,762           2,762
CHICAGO RIVER, IL...............................................             362             362             362
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL.......................................             195             195             195
ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI CANAL, IL..............................             562             562             562
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN......................          22,808          23,808          22,808
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN......................           1,598           1,598           1,598
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL...............................             473             473             473
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL..................................           2,081           2,081           2,081
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL.....................................             837             837             837
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL............................................           5,209           5,209           5,209
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION)..........          39,842          43,842          39,842
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION)..........          14,499          14,499          16,999
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL...................................              43              43              43
REND LAKE, IL...................................................           3,904           3,904           3,904
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL....................              97              97              97
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL.............................................           1,473           1,473           1,473

                             INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN.............................................             782             782             782
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN.......................................           1,937           1,937           1,937
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN............................................             732             732             732
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN.........................................             864             864             864
INDIANA HARBOR, IN..............................................             429             429             429
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN...............................             101             101             101
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN.........................................             824             824             824
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN........................................             806           1,206             806
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN...........................................           1,182           1,182           1,182
MONROE LAKE, IN.................................................             799             799             799
PATOKA LAKE, IN.................................................             731             731             731
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN...................................              42              42              42
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN..............................................             749             749             749
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN....................              62              62              62

                              IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA.............................................           2,952           2,952           2,952
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA...............................             738             738             738
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA.............             146             146             146
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS AND  MO...............           5,250           5,250           5,950
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA AND NE...................           2,111           2,111           2,111
RATHBUN LAKE, IA................................................           2,058           2,058           2,058
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA..............................           3,827           5,071           4,827
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA............................................           4,074           4,074           4,074

                             KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS................................................           1,621           1,621           1,621
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS..........................................           1,197           1,197           1,197
EL DORADO LAKE, KS..............................................             487             487             487
ELK CITY LAKE, KS...............................................             728             728             728
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS.............................................           1,429           1,429           1,429
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS..............................................             908             908             908
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS...............................              36              36              36
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS..............................           1,186           1,531           1,186
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS..............................................           1,541           1,541           1,541
MARION LAKE, KS.................................................           1,354           1,354           1,354
MELVERN LAKE, KS................................................           1,872           1,872           1,872
MILFORD LAKE, KS................................................           1,906           1,906           1,906
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS..............................           1,074           1,074           1,074
PERRY LAKE, KS..................................................           1,966           1,966           1,966
POMONA LAKE, KS.................................................           1,830           1,830           1,830
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS.............................             193             193             193
TORONTO LAKE, KS................................................             673             673             673
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS...........................................           2,546           2,546           2,546
WILSON LAKE, KS.................................................           2,017           2,017           2,017

                            KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN.........................          10,330          10,330          10,330
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY...........................................           2,544           2,544           2,544
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY............................................           1,497           1,497           1,497
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY...............................................           1,685           1,685           1,685
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY.............................................           1,542           1,542           1,542
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY...............................................             868             868             868
DEWEY LAKE, KY..................................................           1,429           1,429           1,429
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY................................             361             361             361
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY...............................................           1,890           1,890           1,890
GRAYSON LAKE, KY................................................           1,366           1,366           1,366
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY.....................................           1,079           1,079           1,079
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY............................................           2,917           2,917           2,917
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY...............................             123             123             123
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY..............................................           1,149           1,149           1,149
KENTUCKY RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS 5-14, KY..........................  ..............             750  ..............
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY...........................................           1,357           1,357           1,357
LICKING RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY.............................              21              21              21
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY...........................................             714             714             714
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY..........................             100             100             100
NOLIN LAKE, KY..................................................           2,285           2,285           2,285
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN AND OH....................          31,813          31,813          31,813
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN AND OH.................           6,007           6,007           6,007
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY............................................           1,016           1,016           1,016
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY............................................           1,827           1,827           1,827
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY...........................................           1,048           1,048           1,048
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY.............................           5,892           5,892           5,892
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY.............................................           1,211           1,211           1,211

                            LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L..........          14,026          14,026          14,026
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA......................................             570             570             570
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA......................................             509             509             509
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA.................             726             726             726
BAYOU PIERRE, LA................................................              25              25              25
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA.....................................             735             735             735
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA.............................              48              48              48
BAYOU TECHE, LA.................................................             132             132             132
CADDO LAKE, LA..................................................             127             127             127
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA....................................          12,117          12,117          12,117
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA............................................           5,354           5,354           5,354
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA..................................          19,478          19,478          21,478
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA......................................           3,175           3,175           3,175
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA...............................             268             268             268
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.................................           8,907          10,907          11,907
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA......................................             559             559             559
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA.........................................             108             108             108
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA.............................................           1,933           1,933           1,933
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA.........................           2,773           2,773           2,773
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO,...........          63,359          63,359          63,359
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA..............................          11,286          11,286          11,286
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA...................................              80              80              80
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA...................................           2,000           2,000           2,000
WALLACE LAKE, LA................................................             233             233             233
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO B DULAC, LA..............              45              45              45

                              MAINE

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME...................................           1,060           1,060           1,060
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS,  ME...................              17              17              17
UNION RIVER, ME.................................................  ..............             900  ..............
WELLS HARBOR, ME................................................           1,455           1,455           2,205

                            MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), MD............................             455             455             455
BALTIMORE HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),..........             710             710             710
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS +50 FOOT), MD.....................          16,354          16,354          16,354
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV.................................             141             141             141
HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD.....................................              55              55              55
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD...............................             327             327             327
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV...............................           1,616           1,616           1,616
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD..............           1,810           1,810           1,810
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD...................................             450             450             450
RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD....................................              70              70              70
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD.............................             140             140             140
ST JEROME CREEK, MD.............................................             175             175             175
TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, MD..........................................           5,801           6,801           5,801
TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD.........................              75              75              75
UPPER THOROFARE, MD.............................................             220             220             220
WICOMICO RIVER, MD..............................................             740             740             740

                          MASSACHUSETTS

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA.............................................             368             368             368
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA..............................................             439             439             439
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA............................................             361             361             361
CAPE COD CANAL, MA..............................................           8,787           8,787           8,787
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA...................             213             213             213
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA...........................................             147             147             147
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA.........................................             267             267             267
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA..........................................             462             462             462
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA...............................             125             125             125
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA.............................................             390             390             390
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA............................................             461             461             461
NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR, MA............................             310             310             310
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER,...........             480             480             480
PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MA.............................................             500             500             500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA...................................           3,113           3,113           3,113
SALEM HARBOR, MA................................................             200             200             200
TULLY LAKE, MA..................................................             436             436             436
WEST HILL DAM, MA...............................................             647             647             647
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA..............................................             342             342             342

                            MICHIGAN

ALPENA HARBOR, MI...............................................             203             203             203
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI..............................................              85              85              85
BLACK RIVER, PORT HURON, MI.....................................             306             306             306
CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MI..........................................  ..............           1,000  ..............
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI...................................             458             458             458
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI...........................................             118             118             118
DETROIT RIVER, MI...............................................           2,342           2,342           2,342
DULUTH ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY...................................  ..............  ..............             320
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI............................................             130             130             130
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI..........................................           1,264           1,264           1,264
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI..............................................             905             905             905
INLAND ROUTE, MI................................................              33              33              33
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI...............................             205             205             305
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI...........................................             256             256             256
LELAND HARBOR, MI...............................................             168             168             168
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI............................................             663             663             663
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI.............................................             272             272             272
MANISTIQUE HARBOR, MI...........................................             239             239             239
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI.....................................             174             174             174
MONROE HARBOR, MI...............................................             695             695             695
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI..........................................  ..............             150  ..............
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI............................................             603             603             603
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI............................................             450             450             450
PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI.........................................           1,974           1,974           1,974
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI...................................             275             275             275
ROUGE RIVER, MI.................................................             417             417             417
SAGINAW RIVER, MI...............................................           1,453           1,453           1,453
SEBEWAING RIVER (ICE JAM REMOVAL), MI...........................              10              10              10
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI..........................................             481             481             481
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI..............................................             996             996             996
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI............................................           1,194           1,194           1,194
ST MARYS RIVER, MI..............................................          20,502          20,502          23,502
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI....................           3,197           3,197           3,197
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI...........................................             290             290             290

                            MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD........................             178             178             178
DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI..............................           5,310           5,310           5,310
DULUTH ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY STUDY, MN.........................  ..............             320  ..............
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MN.........................................             186             186             186
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN...............................             154             154             154
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN........................             453             453             453
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN.............................................             196             196             196
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION)..........          42,765          42,765          42,765
ORWELL LAKE, MN.................................................             315             315             315
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN...................................              25              25              25
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN..........................................             101             101             101
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN...............           2,805           2,805           2,805
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS,  MN...................              64              64              64
TWO HARBORS, MN.................................................             208             208             208

                           MISSISSIPPI

BILOXI HARBOR, MS...............................................             801             801             801
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS.......................................             122             122             122
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS..................................             150             150             150
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS.............................................           2,500           2,500           2,500
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS...............................             360             360             360
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS........................................             133             133             133
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS..............................................             955             955             955
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS...........................................           3,406           5,406           5,406
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA..........................................             250             250             250
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS.............................................             645             645             645
YAZOO RIVER, MS.................................................             115             115             115

                            MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO.......................................             184             184             295
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO.....................           5,196           5,196           5,196
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO.............................................           2,015           2,015           2,015
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO............................           7,688           7,688           7,688
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO...............................             473             473             473
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO.....................................             854             854             854
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO............................................             931             931             931
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO..........          13,384          13,384          13,384
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO...........................................             259             354             354
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO.........................................           2,065           2,065           2,065
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO...................................              26              26              26
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO.............................................           1,160           1,160           1,160
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO..................             401             401             401
STOCKTON LAKE, MO...............................................           3,486           3,486           3,486
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO.............................................           6,485           6,485           6,485
UNION LAKE, MO..................................................              10              10              10

                             MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT........................................           3,620           3,620           3,620
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT...................................           2,273           2,273           2,273

                            NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD...............           6,151           6,151           6,241
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE..........................................           2,198           2,198           2,198
MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO,...........             709             709             709
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER PLANNING (NWK..........             125             125             125
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN COLLABORATIVE WATER PLANNING (NWO..........             125             125             125
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE.......................             721             721             721
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE..................................             796             796             796
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NE.............................             327             327             327

                             NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV...............................              34              34              34
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA....................................             522             522             522
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV..............................             193             193             193

                          NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH..............................................             389             389             389
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH.......................................             412             412             412
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH..........................................             478             478             478
HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH....................................             984             984             984
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH............................................             554             554             554
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH AND ME...............  ..............  ..............             250
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH.........................................             469             469             469

                           NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ..............................................           1,400           1,400           1,400
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ...........................................             580             580             580
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ....................................              19              19              19
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA AND DE..........          16,355          16,355          17,855
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ.................           3,180           3,180           3,180
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ............................           2,005           2,005           2,005
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ...................             120             120             120
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ.........................             425             425             425
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ........................             140             140             140
RARITAN RIVER, NJ...............................................             120             120             120
SALEM RIVER, NJ.................................................             278             278             278
SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ..............................             175             175             175

                           NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM.................................................           1,315           1,315           1,315
COCHITI LAKE, NM................................................           1,766           1,766           3,266
CONCHAS LAKE, NM................................................           1,037           1,037           1,537
GALISTEO DAM, NM................................................             305             305             305
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM...............................              50              50              50
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM............................................             445             445             445
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM.....................................             846             846           1,026
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM.............................              73              73              73
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM..............................................             313             313             313
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL, NM.....................  ..............  ..............           1,250

                            NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY.................................................             468             468             468
ARKPORT DAM, NY.................................................             257             257             257
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY.....................           2,966           2,966           2,966
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY..............................................             176             176             176
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY..............................................             310             310             310
EAST RIVER, NY..................................................             750             750             750
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY.........................................           2,250           2,250           2,250
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY............................................             473             473             473
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY............................             340             340             340
FIRE ISLAND INLET, NY...........................................           1,000           1,000           1,000
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY......................................             490             490             490
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY.............................................           1,540           1,540           1,540
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY........................................           1,265           1,265           1,265
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT)........................................           2,485           2,485           2,485
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)..........................................           1,340           1,340           1,340
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY...............................             460             460             460
JAMAICA BAY, NY.................................................           1,410           1,410           1,410
JONES INLET, NY.................................................             200             200             200
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY...........................           2,190           2,190           2,190
MORICHES INLET, NY..............................................             980             980             980
MT MORRIS LAKE, NY..............................................           1,958           1,958           1,958
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY............................           6,720           6,720           6,720
NEW YORK HARBOR (DRIFT REMOVAL), NY AND NJ......................           5,030           5,030           5,030
NEW YORK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS),...........             740             740             740
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY.............................................          12,319          12,319          12,319
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY...............................................             353             353             353
PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY..........................................             200             200             200
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY...................................           3,038           3,038           3,038
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY............................................             725             725             725
SAG HARBOR, NY..................................................           1,600           1,600           1,600
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY............................................           2,000           2,000           2,000
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY....................             739             739             739
STURGEON POINT HARBOR, NY.......................................              15              15              15
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY....................             564             564             564
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY..........................................             517             517             517

                         NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC..............................           5,831           5,831           5,831
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC...............................           1,500           1,500           1,500
BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC.............................................             350             350             350
BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC.....................................             627             627             627
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC............................             897             897             897
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC........................................           1,430           1,430           1,430
FALLS LAKE, NC..................................................           1,276           1,276           1,276
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC...............................              22              22              22
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC.......................................             455             455             455
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC.....................................           4,995           4,995           4,995
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC.....................              45              45              45
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC........................................           4,737           4,737           4,737
NEW RIVER INLET, NC.............................................             825             825             825
NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC...................             610             610             610
PAMLICO AND TAR RIVERS, NC......................................             139             139             139
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC...................................              64              64              64
ROANOKE RIVER, NC...............................................             100             100             100
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC..............................           1,742           1,742           1,742
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC...........................................           8,405           8,405           8,405

                          NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN--HALEY LAKE, ND..........................................             241             241             241
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND................................           8,513           8,563           8,563
HOMME LAKE, ND..................................................             153             153             153
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND.............................           1,230           1,230           1,230
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND...............................................             401             401             401
SOURIS RIVER, ND................................................             292             292             292

                              OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH.............................................             790             790             790
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH............................................             750             750             750
BERLIN LAKE, OH.................................................           3,270           3,270           3,270
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH...........................................           1,309           1,309           1,309
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH........................................           1,175           1,175           1,175
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH............................................           3,915           3,915           5,915
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH.............................................             735             735             735
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH.............................................             745             745             745
DELAWARE LAKE, OH...............................................             777             777             777
DILLON LAKE, OH.................................................             709             709             709
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH.............................................           1,785           1,785           1,785
HURON HARBOR, OH................................................             790             790             790
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH...............................             240             240             240
LORAIN HARBOR, OH...............................................           2,152           2,152           2,152
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..........................              25              25              25
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH..........................           1,033           1,033           1,033
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH.........................................           1,329           1,329           1,329
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH.......................................           7,993           7,993           7,993
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH............................             544             544             544
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH............................................             661             661             661
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH...................................              85              85              85
ROCKY RIVER HARBOR, OH..........................................  ..............  ..............             590
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH..........................              30              30              30
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH.............................................             870             870             870
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS,  OH...................             174             174             174
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH...............................................           4,550           4,550           4,550
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH.............................................             350             350             350
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH................................             565             565             565
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH.......................................             821             821             821

                            OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK................................................             417             417             417
BIRCH LAKE, OK..................................................             480             480             480
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK.............................................           1,471           1,471           1,971
CANDY LAKE, OK..................................................              18              18              18
CANTON LAKE, OK.................................................           2,656           2,656           2,656
COPAN LAKE, OK..................................................             823             823             823
EUFAULA LAKE, OK................................................           7,240           7,240           7,240
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK............................................           5,954           5,954           5,954
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK............................................             838             838             838
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK......................................             209             209             209
HEYBURN LAKE, OK................................................             557             557             557
HUGO LAKE, OK...................................................           1,639           1,639           1,639
HULAH LAKE, OK..................................................             447             447             447
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK...............................              72              72              72
KAW LAKE, OK....................................................           1,756           1,756           1,756
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK...............................................           6,435           6,435           6,435
MCCLELLAN--KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK............           4,588           4,588           4,588
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK................................................           2,353           2,353           2,353
OPTIMA LAKE, OK.................................................              63              63              63
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES,  OK.................              32              32              32
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK.............................................           1,160           1,160           1,160
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS,  OK..................           4,001           4,001           4,001
SARDIS LAKE, OK.................................................             944             944             944
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK.............................             386             386             386
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK...............................................             947             947             947
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK........................................           3,178           3,178           3,178
WAURIKA LAKE, OK................................................           1,441           1,441           1,441
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK..................................           3,297           3,297           3,297
WISTER LAKE, OK.................................................             729           1,229           1,429

                             OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR..............................................             748             748             748
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR.............................................             332             332             332
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..............................           6,250           6,250           6,250
CHETCO RIVER, OR................................................             435             435             435
COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA......          16,274          16,274          18,874
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA..........................           7,403           7,403           7,403
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O..........             357             357             357
COOS BAY, OR....................................................           4,144           4,144           4,144
COQUILLE RIVER, OR..............................................             316             316             316
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR..........................................             919             919             919
COUGAR LAKE, OR.................................................             705             705             705
DEPOE BAY, OR...................................................               3               3             363
DETROIT LAKE, OR................................................             672             672             672
DORENA LAKE, OR.................................................             580             580             580
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................             619             619             619
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR.............................................           1,277           1,277           1,277
GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR...................................           1,050           1,050           1,050
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR............................................             408             408             408
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR...............................             220             220             220
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA................................           4,507           4,507           4,507
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR..........................................           1,990           1,990           1,990
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................           2,919           2,919           2,919
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA..................................           4,989           4,989           4,989
PORT ORFORD, OR.................................................             702             702             702
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR...................................             200             200             200
ROGUE RIVER, OR.................................................             641             641             641
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR.............................              67              67              67
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR...............................................             822             822             822
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR............................................             176             176             176
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS,  OR...................             134             134             134
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR.......................................             148             148             148
UMPQUA RIVER, OR................................................           1,421           1,421           1,421
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR........................           1,234           1,234           1,234
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR............................             285             285             285
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR...........................................             646             646             646
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR......................................           7,895           7,895           7,895

                          PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA.............................................           6,905           6,905           6,905
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA............................................             608             608             608
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA.......................................             216             216             216
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA.............................................             832             832             832
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA.............................................           2,121           2,121           2,121
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA........................................           1,259           1,259           1,259
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA.............................................           1,785           2,035           1,785
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA..........................................           1,491           1,491           1,491
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA...........................................             659             659             659
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA..............................             903             903             903
ERIE HARBOR, PA.................................................             125             125             125
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA....................................             713             713             713
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA........................................             663             663             663
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA......................             321             321             321
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA...............................              95              95              95
JOHNSTOWN, PA...................................................              13              13              13
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA..........................           1,472           1,472           1,472
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA.............................................           1,778           1,778           1,778
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA.........................................           1,392           1,392           1,392
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA...........................................          14,293          14,293          14,293
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV........................          22,407          22,407          22,407
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND WV.....................             218             218             218
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA...................................              88              88              88
PROMPTON LAKE, PA...............................................             437             437             437
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA................................................              13              13              13
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA...............................................           3,533           4,783           3,533
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA............................................             740             740             740
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA.........................................           2,644           2,644           2,644
STILLWATER LAKE, PA.............................................             334             334             334
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA....................              70              70              70
TIOGA--HAMMOND LAKES, PA........................................           2,382           3,352           2,382
TIONESTA LAKE, PA...............................................           1,788           1,788           1,788
UNION CITY LAKE, PA.............................................             258             258             258
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA.........................................             817             817             817
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA........................................             517             517             517
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD..............................           2,011           2,011           2,011

                          RHODE ISLAND

PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI.................................             584             584             584

                         SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC..............................           3,629           3,629           5,629
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC...........................................           7,145           7,145           7,145
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC.............................           3,235           3,235           3,235
FOLLY RIVER, SC.................................................             266             266             266
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC...........................................           5,234           5,234           5,234
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC...............................              26              26              26
MURRELLS INLET, SC..............................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
PORT ROYAL HARBOR, SC...........................................              21              21              21
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC...................................              60              60              60
SHIPYARD RIVER, SC..............................................             477             477             477
TOWN CREEK, SC..................................................             398             398             398

                          SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD...................................           6,422           6,422           6,502
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD.............................................             496             496             496
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD.....................................             172             172             172
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD.........................           8,852           8,852           8,942
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN........................................             580             580             580
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT..........             586             586             586
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND..................................          11,192          11,192          11,282
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD.............................             306             306             306

                            TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................           6,070           6,070           6,070
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN.......................................           5,307           5,307           5,307
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN............................................           1,900           1,900           1,900
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN..............................           4,916           4,916           4,916
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN............................................           4,191           4,191           4,191
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN...............................               5               5               5
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN............................           3,278           3,278           3,278
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN....................................           6,326           6,326           6,326
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN.............................................          14,484          14,484          14,484
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN...........................................             348             348             348

                              TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX................................................             738             738             738
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI............           1,340           1,340           1,340
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX....................................             314
BARDWELL LAKE, TX...............................................           1,453           1,453           1,453
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................           1,810           1,810           1,810
BELTON LAKE, TX.................................................           3,103           3,103           3,103
BENBROOK LAKE, TX...............................................           1,975           1,975           1,975
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX........................................           4,802           4,802           4,802
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX...............................           2,029           2,029           2,029
CANYON LAKE, TX.................................................           2,689           2,689           2,689
CHANNEL TO PORT MANSFIELD, TX...................................           2,627           2,627           2,627
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX.................................           5,036           5,036           5,036
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX....................................           5,517           5,517           5,517
DOUBLE BAYOU, TX................................................             805             805             805
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX......................              10              10              10
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX......................           2,801           2,801           2,801
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.............................................           4,802           4,802           4,802
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX................................              87              87              87
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX...................................             752             752             752
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX........................................           1,573           1,573           1,573
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX..............................................           2,433           2,433           2,433
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX..................................          21,765          21,765          21,765
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX............................................           1,203           1,203           1,203
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................           8,137           8,137           8,137
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX...............................             393             393             393
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX............................................           1,144           1,144           1,144
JOE POOL LAKE, TX...............................................             759             759             759
LAKE KEMP, TX...................................................             201             201             201
LAVON LAKE, TX..................................................           2,439           2,439           2,439
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX..............................................           2,959           2,959           2,959
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX......................................           4,315           4,315           4,315
MOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER, TX.................................           2,953           2,953           2,953
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX..........................................           1,524           1,524           1,524
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN,  TX..................           1,785           1,785           1,785
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX.....................................           1,005           1,005           1,005
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX..............................................             941             941             941
PROCTOR LAKE, TX................................................           1,709           1,709           1,709
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX...................................              75              75              75
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX............................................           1,002           1,002           1,002
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX.....................................          10,013          10,013          10,013
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX...............................           4,191           4,191           4,191
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX.............................             249             249             249
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX.............................................           2,773           2,773           2,773
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX.......................................           1,744           1,744           1,744
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX.....................................             371             371             371
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX.........................           2,007           2,007           2,007
TRINITY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX...............................              29              29              29
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESMENT................................  ..............  ..............           1,500
WACO LAKE, TX...................................................           2,301           2,301           2,301
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX............................................           1,208           1,208           1,208
WHITNEY LAKE, TX................................................           4,680           4,680           4,680
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX..................................           2,643           2,643           2,643

                              UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT...............................              55              55              55
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT.............................             305             305             305

                             VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT..........................................             607             607             607
BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT...........................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY............................              46              46              46
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT.........................................             561             561             561
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT......................................             583             583             583
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT..............................................             629             629             629
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT...........................................             464             464             464

                            VIRGINIA

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA............................................             593             593             593
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA.........................           1,750           1,750           1,750
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA.........................           1,325           1,325           1,325
CHANNEL TO NEWPORT NEWS, VA.....................................             120             120             120
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA..........................................             877             877             877
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA...............................           1,465           1,465           1,465
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM........             995             995             995
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA...............................              77              77              77
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA.........................................           4,294           4,294           4,294
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA AND NC.....................................           8,041           8,041           8,041
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA..........................           1,525           1,525           1,525
LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER, VA.......................................             605             605             605
NORFOLK HARBOR (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS), V..........             225             225             225
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA..............................................           6,105           6,105           6,105
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA..............................             406             406             406
OCCOQUAN RIVER,VA...............................................  ..............           1,000  ..............
PAGAN RIVER, VA.................................................             145             145             145
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA...............................................           3,060           3,060           3,060
POTOMAC RIVER AT MT VERNON, VA..................................             410             410             410
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA...................................             617             617             617
RUDEE INLET, VA.................................................             646             646             646
STARLINGS CREEK, VA.............................................             551             551             551
THIMBLE SHOAL CHANNEL, VA.......................................             204             204             204
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA...........................           1,185           1,185           1,185

                           WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA............................................           2,113           2,113           2,113
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA AND OR..........................               3               3               3
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND ISLAND, WA..............               6               6               6
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA..........................           1,212           1,212           1,212
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA.............................           9,820          10,470          11,920
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA...........................................           1,849           1,849           1,849
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA.....................................           6,094           6,094           6,094
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA...............................             146             146             146
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA..................................           6,797           6,797           6,797
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA...................................           1,537           1,537           1,537
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA..................................           4,291           4,291           4,291
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA...............................           2,821           2,821           2,821
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA.............................................             925             925             925
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA...............................             312             312             312
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................           2,440           2,440           2,440
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA...................................             316             316             316
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA............................             967             967             967
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA............................................              37           1,007           1,037
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA.............................             415             415             415
SEATTLE HARBOR, EAST WATERWAY CHANNEL DEEPENING, WA.............             100             100             450
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA..............................................             714             714             714
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA.........................................             205             205             205
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS,  WA...................              56              56              56
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA......................................              78              78              78
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR..............................           3,432           3,432           3,432
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA....................................  ..............             650  ..............

                          WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV.............................................           1,137           1,137           1,137
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV..............................................           1,689           3,200           1,689
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV.............................................           1,723           1,723           1,723
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV..............................................           1,714           1,714           1,714
ELKINS, WV......................................................              16              16              16
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV...............................              91              91              91
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV................................           7,782           7,782           7,782
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH........................          15,934          15,934          15,934
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND OH.....................           2,786           2,786           2,786
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV.............................................           1,934           1,934           1,934
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV......................................           1,216           1,216           1,216
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV...........................................           1,526           1,526           1,526
SUTTON LAKE, WV.................................................           1,903           1,903           1,903
TYGART LAKE, WV.................................................           3,568           3,568           3,568

                            WISCONSIN

ASHLAND HARBOR, WI..............................................             170             170             170
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI........................................             735             735             735
FOX RIVER, WI...................................................           3,252           3,252           3,252
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI............................................           1,640           1,640           1,640
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI..............................................             925             925             925
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI.............................................             490             490             490
LA FARGE LAKE, WI...............................................              53              53              53
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI............................................             738             738             738
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI............................................             819             819             819
SHEBOYGAN HARBOR, WI............................................             290             290             290
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI............           1,534           1,534           1,534
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI....................              28              28              28
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI...........................................             537             537             537

                             WYOMING

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY.........................................           1,163           1,163           1,163

                          MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM..................................           3,000           2,500           2,750
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)............................           3,000           1,500           1,500
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE....................................          13,500           9,000           8,000
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM............           1,166             500           1,016
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER)...........           8,000           6,500           7,000
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (DOTS) PROGRAM............           2,100           1,500           1,500
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS PROGRAM FOR BUILDINGS AND LIFELINES..........             600             500             500
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS...........................  ..............             500  ..............
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION..........................             975             575             575
MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR O&M........................................           1,100             500             500
MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.......................           2,000           1,000           1,700
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.....................................              40              40              40
NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM...................................              25              20              25
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS (NEPP).................           6,000           5,000           3,000
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PRO-  GRAM..................           1,650             415             415
PROTECTING, CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING CHANNELS(SEC 3...........              50              50              50
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (RMSP)....................           1,950           1,000           1,950
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT SEDIMENT DEMO PROGRAM..............           1,500           1,500  ..............
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION.............             675             500             675
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS.......................................             500             500             500
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) PROGRAM...............           1,500             700             700
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS..................................           4,600           4,000           4,000
WETLANDS FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY......................           1,000  ..............  ..............
ZEBRA MUSSEL CONTROL............................................             700             700             700
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE..................         -16,867         -37,941         -33,867
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..........................       1,854,000       1,854,000       1,862,471
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 innovative ways to 
accomplish required maintenance work while reducing operational 
and other costs. 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.
    Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, AL.--An additional 
$1,500,000 is recommended for the Black Warrior and Tombigbee 
Rivers in Alabama for engineering and design for replacement 
gates at Bankhead Lock, and to repair spillway gates at 
Coffeeville Lock and Dam.
    Mobile Harbor, AL.--The Committee has provided $22,665,000 
for maintenance activities at Mobile Harbor in Alabama, 
including an additional $4,000,000 to dredge the Arlington 
Channel to a depth that is sufficient to support the navigation 
needs of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Committee is aware the a new 
Coast Guard buoy tender is scheduled to arrive at the Coast 
Guard facility in fiscal year 2002 and the current channel 
depth cannot accommodate the new vessel. Therefore, it is 
critical that the Arlington Channel be deepened prior to the 
arrival of the new buoy tender.
    Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Lake and Channel, CA.--The 
additional amount above the budget request for fiscal year 2001 
for the Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Lake and Channel is provided 
for the Corps to perform operations and maintenance of dam and 
facilities miscellaneous repairs to facilities.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, 
DE.--The amount recommended by the Committee for the 
Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, DE 
project does not include funding proposed in the budget for 
demolishing the St. George bridge contingent upon the 
appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress resolving 
policy issues related to the continued use of the bridge.
    Canaveral Harbor, FL.--The Committee is aware that the 
Corps of Engineers has not proceeded to implement section 310 
of Public Law 106-53, and that the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Civil Works recently signed the project cooperation 
agreement for the Brevard County, Florida storm damage 
reduction project which is located just south of Canaveral 
Harbor. Given that erosion of the Brevard County beach may be 
in part the result of the navigation project, the Committee 
directs the Corps to utilize funds appropriated herein to 
determine if mitigation is warranted and to mitigate such 
damage consistent with the intent of section 310. The Committee 
believes that use of operation and maintenance funds is 
consistent with section 201(e) of Public Law 104-303. It is not 
intended that the mitigation assessment delay construction of 
the Brevard County project.
    Allatoona Lake, GA.--The Committee recommendation includes 
an additional $1,000,000 for the Allatoona Lake, Georgia 
project for the Corps to undertake additional high priority 
maintenance and repair work, including camping facilities.
    Red Rock Dam and Lake Red Rock, IA.--An appropriation of 
$4,827,000 is provided for the Red Rock Dam and Lake Red Rock 
project in Iowa for the Corps to repair scouring of the South-
East Des Moines levee.
    Rock Island, Arsenal, IL.--The Committee is aware that the 
Army's Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, and the Army Corps of 
Engineers have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with 
the Corps providing installation support to the Arsenal and the 
Arsenal providing engineering and manufacturing support to the 
Corps and believes this relationship should continue.
    Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Bouef, and Black, LA.--The 
Committee is concerned about the safety and navigation problems 
on the Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Buoef, and Black, LA 
navigation project caused by ``fluff'' on the channel bottom. 
The Corps is directed to take immediate action necessary to 
resume safe, unimpeded navigation at the true authorized 20 
foot depth. In addition, the Committee directs the Corps to 
work with the Waterways Experiment Station to determine the 
cause of this phenomenon and to develop and implement long term 
solutions to this problem.
    Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA.--The Committee has provided 
an additional appropriation of $2,000,000 over the budget 
request for the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Louisiana for the 
Corps to fabricate one set of spare miter gates at Leland 
Bowman Lock.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.--The Committee 
understands that the lack of certified stoplogs for lock and 
dam closures continues to be a key element causing deferral of 
routine maintenance and creates the potential for inability to 
make closure in the event of an urgent or emergency situation. 
Therefore, the Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000 
above the budget request for the Corps to expedite repairs to 
lock and dam stoplogs, and to undertake other critical 
maintenance work.
    Belfast Harbor and Narraguagus River, ME.--The Corps is to 
use $50,000 and $30,000 of available Operation and Maintenance 
funding, respectively, to complete an environmental assessment 
and initiate plans and specification for preparation for 
maintenance dredging of Belfast Harbor and Narraguagus River, 
ME projects.
    Clinton Spillway, MI.--The Committee has included an 
additional $100,000 under Inspection of Completed Projects, MI 
for the Corps to conduct an evaluation to determine whether the 
Clinton River Spillway in Michigan has a design deficiency 
requiring remediation.
    St. Marys River, Vidal Shoals, MI.--An additional amount of 
$3,000,000 is recommended for the St. Marys project in Michigan 
for the Corps to initiate and complete dredging of the Upper 
St. Mary's (Vidal Shoals) reach for continued safe navigation.
    Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis, 
MN, IL (MVS Portion).--The Committee has included an additional 
$2,500,000 for the Mississippi River Between Missouri River and 
Minneapolis, MVS portion, project for the Corps to complete 
emergency lift gate repairs necessary to avoid high water lock 
closure.
    Missouri River-Rulo to Mouth, MO.--An increase of $700,000 
is provided in order to upgrade projects identified in the 
Northwestern Division Comprehensive Plan necessary to 
accommodate the needs of the public during the Lewis and Clark 
Expedition Bicentennial celebration activities.
    Caruthersville Harbor, MO.--The Committee recommendation 
for the Caruthersville Harbor in Missouri includes an 
additional $111,000 to perform necessary maintenance dredging 
at the Harbor. The Committee understands that the work is 
needed to improve conditions restricting industrial activities 
in the area.
    Gavins Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake, NE and SD.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $90,000 above the budget 
request for the Gavins Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake project 
for additional work at the project in support of activities 
related to the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration.
    Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea, NJ, PA, and DE.--
The Committee has provided an additional $1,500,000 for the 
Corps to continue construction of facilities to control erosion 
of the shoreline in the vicinity of Pea Patch Island located in 
the Delaware River east of Delaware City, DE.
    Cochiti Lake, NM.--The recommendation includes an 
additional $1,500,000 for the Corps to address impacts of 
recent fires and to perform other essential maintenance work at 
Cochiti Lake in New Mexico.
    Upper Rio Grande water operation model, NM.--The Committee 
has provide $1,250,000 for the Upper Rio Grande Water 
Operations Model for the Corps to complete testing, continued 
model refinement and data base development, and continue the 
water operations review and EIS, including stakeholder 
coordination and involvement, and data collection.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, ND.--The Committee 
recommendation for the Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea project in 
North Dakota includes $50,000 for the Corps to continue 
mosquito control activities.
    New York Harbor, NY.--The Committee is concerned about a 
serious safety issue that exists at the entrance to the 
authorized 45-foot Ambrose Channel. Submerged obstructions and 
debris near the entrance to the channel were previously marked 
by the Ambrose Light Tower. The light tower marked the entrance 
to the navigation channel and, incidentally, marked the 
submerged obstructions and debris. The Ambrose Light Tower was 
seriously damaged by an incoming container ship and was 
subsequently dismantled in 1999. The Coast Guard has located a 
new light tower in anticipation of future deepening of the 
channel. The obstructions are now marked by a buoy that may not 
be considered an effective permanent solution for heavy weather 
conditions. The Committee directs the Corps to prepare the 
necessary documentation and to initiate removal of the 
submerged obstructions and debris in the interest of improving 
safe access to the navigation channel and to ensure the 
authorized depths are maintained.
    Rocky River Harbor, OH.--The Committee has included 
$590,000 for the Rocky River Harbor project in Ohio for the 
Corps to undertake and complete construction to repair to the 
deteriorated East Breakwater.
    Broken Bow Lake, OK.--The Committee recommends an 
additional appropriation of $500,000 over the budget request 
for the Corps to initiate a reallocation study and conduct 
other activities which will address the need for allocation of 
water to support the Mountain Fork trout fishery located 
downstream of Broken Bow Dam in Oklahoma.
    Wister Lake, OK.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$700,000 above the budget request for the Corps to conduct a 
reallocation study and prepare documentation necessary to 
address the permanent seasonal pool increases at Wister Lake in 
Oklahoma.
    Columbia and Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver, OR and 
WA.--The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$2,600,000 to continue repairs to the Astoria East Boat Basin.
    Within the $18,874,000 recommended, the Committee has 
included $500,000 to remove and reinstall the docks and 
causeway in-kind.
    Depoe Bay, OR.--The Committee has provided $360,000 for the 
Corps to undertake work to halt the movement of a retaining 
wall at Depoe Bay in Oregon.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.--An additional 
appropriation of $2,000,000 over the budget request is 
recommended for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway project in 
South Carolina. The additional funding will enable the Corps of 
Engineers to undertake bank stabilization in the area on the 
AIWW from Little River to Bucksport.
    Port Royal, SC.--The Corps is directed to use $50,000 of 
available Operation and Maintenance, General funding to collect 
data and develop a site management plan for ocean dredge 
material disposal in accordance with the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 of the Port Royal, SC navigation 
project.
    Murrells Inlet, SC.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to dredge the entrance 
channel at Murrells Inlet, SC.
    Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration Activities, 
SD.--The Committee has included additional funding to support 
activities related to the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial 
Commemoration at several sites in South Dakota as follows: Big 
Bend Dam, Lake Sharpe, $80,000; Fort Randell Dam, Lake Francis 
Case, $90,000; and Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, $90,000.
    Texas Water Allocation Assessment, TX.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Texas Water 
Allocation Assessment. The assessment will enable the Corps to 
assist the water regions in determining if existing water can 
be better allocated to support more balanced water use in light 
of future needs. The Committee understands that Texas regional 
water planning groups are working together to explore water 
supply opportunities in Texas to meet these future needs. The 
Committee supports the Corps' involvement in addressing the 
broad range of issues related to water supply throughout the 
State and has recommended this funding to allow the Corps to 
participate in this effort. Lake Whitney and Lake Sam Rayburn 
are excluded from this reallocation assessment.
    Burlington Harbor Breakwater, VT.--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 for the Corps to complete repairs to the 
breakwater end segments, and to initiate underwater 
investigation and engineering and design work associated with 
the repair of an additional 500-foot section of the south 
breakwater, which preliminary investigations indicated are in 
need of repair. If confirmed by underwater investigations, 
funding is provided for construction of necessary repairs to 
the mid-section of the breakwater.
    Grays Harbor and Chehalis River. WA.--The Committee 
recommendation included an additional $2,100,000 for continued 
rehabilitation work on the North Jetty of the Grays Harbor and 
Chehalis River, WA navigation project.
    Quillayute River Navigation Project, WA.--In addition to 
the work proposed in the budget request, the Committee has 
recommended an increase of $1,000,000 to provide for necessary 
minimum maintenance to keep the entrance channel open and the 
harbor accessible.
    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: 
maintenance dredging at Helena Harbor and Osceola Harbor, AR 
and maintenance and dredging at Union River, ME.
    Funding Adjustments.--Severe budget constraints have made 
it necessary for the Committee to recommended additional 
reductions to program funding levels proposed in the budget 
request. The Committee regrets having to take this actions in 
order to bring the bill in compliance with the allocations 
required by congressional budget caps, and to correct 
programmatic imbalances proposed in the President's fiscal year 
2001 request.
    It is the Committee's understanding that the Civil Works 
program of the Corps of Engineers is now funding the costs 
related to national emergency preparedness activities 
undertaken by the entire Corps of Engineers, both for civil 
works and military construction. Severe budget constraints have 
required the Committee to recommend a reduction in the Corps' 
National Emergency Preparedness Programs. The Committee directs 
that the funding for activities which primarily benefit the 
military side of the Corps not be funded from the Civil Works 
program.
    The Committee has reduced the amount requested for ready 
reserve status to $8,000,000, which is consistent with the 
current year and the net cost to keep the dredge Wheeler in 
ready reserve. If during the year, the need for the dredge 
Wheeler does not materialize so that the amount appropriated 
for ready reserve is insufficient to pay all ready reserve 
costs, the Corps is directed to reduce hopper dredging work 
proportionately based on capacity in order to keep the dredge 
Wheeler in ready reserve.
    The Committee notes that the report required by Section 237 
of the Water Resource Development Act of 1996 addressing 
whether the Federal hopper dredge Wheeler should be returned to 
active status or continued in ready reserve, and if another 
Federal hopper dredge should be placed in ready reserve status 
has only recently been transmitted to the Congress. The 
Committee believes that, given the policy implications, the 
future status of dredge Wheeler or the recommendation of 
placing another dredge in ready reserve should be carefully 
reviewed and authorized by the appropriate authorizing 
committees of the Congress before being implemented.

                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

    The Committee has been informed that severe erosion is 
endangering the structural integrity of the seawall at Bethel, 
AK and that the seawall may collapse threatening public 
facilities including the village's fuel supply. The Committee 
directs the Corps to utilize its emergency authorities to make 
immediate repairs to protect the Federal investment in the 
area, including the seawall and other public facilities. The 
Corps should report back to the Committee as soon as possible 
on its recommendations for a long-term solution to the erosion 
problem.

                           regulatory program

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $117,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     125,000,000
House allowance.........................................     125,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     120,000,000

    An appropriation of $120,000,000 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 Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
Engineers, is directed to use $650,000 of appropriations 
recommended for the regulatory program to continue the 
cumulative impact study of the Yellowstone River in the 
vicinity of Park County and Livingston, Montana. The Corps is 
directed to undertake this task in cooperation with the 
Governor's Yellowstone Task Force.
    The Committee recommendation concurs with language 
contained in the House passed bill which seeks to improve the 
analysis and increase the information available to the public 
and Congress regarding the costs of the regulatory program 
nationwide permit program and permit processing times. The 
language directs the Corps of Engineers to: (1) revise a cost 
analysis of modified nationwide permits based on promulgated 
rules rather than proposed rules; (2) prepare a plan to manage 
and reduce backlog associated with new and replacement permits 
issued on March 9, 2000, and develop criteria to measure 
progress in reducing the backlog; (3) provide quarterly 
reporting on program performance based on the above criteria; 
(4) provide quarterly reporting, on a 1 year pilot basis, of 
all Regulatory Analysis and Management System data for the 
South Pacific and North Atlantic Divisions; (5) publish in 
Division Office website decisions rendered under the 
administrative appeals process and allow any appellant to keep 
a verbatim record of the appeals conference; and (6) record in 
its data base the dates of initial permit application or 
notification.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     140,000,000
House allowance.........................................     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 2001. 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 pleased that the 
Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers have finally 
entered into an agreement on the functions of the program 
assumed by the Corps. This should help eliminate any 
uncertainties as the program moves forward.
    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 defense sites had been appropriated 
to the Department of Energy through existing appropriation 
accounts. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of 
Engineers, the Committee intended to transfer only the 
responsibility for administration and execution of cleanup 
activities at eligible sites where remediation had not been 
completed. It did not intend to transfer ownership of and 
accountability for real property interests that remain with the 
Department of Energy.
    The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the 
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its 
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee always intended for the Corps expertise be used 
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming 
and budgeting for FUSRAP defense production sites cleanup 
program as part of the Corps of Engineers--Civil program.
    The Committee recommendation includes up to $5,000,000 for 
the Corps to determine the appropriate response action under 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act to address FUSRAP-related contamination at the 
Parks Township Shallow Land Disposal Area, Parks Township, 
Armstrong County, PA; and to initiate remediation activities as 
appropriate. The Committee understands that the Department of 
Energy has determined that the site contains waste resulting 
from activities which supported the Nation's early atomic 
energy program.

                            general expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $149,500,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     152,000,000
House allowance.........................................     149,500,000
Committee recommendation................................     152,000,000

    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 $152,000,000.
    The Committee recommendation is based on a concern about 
the ability of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide 
adequate and effective executive direction and management of 
its civil works program given the requested level of General 
Expenses funding. The Corps has reorganized, reducing the 
number of division offices and assigning increased 
responsibilities to district offices. It has reduced its 
headquarters staffing and has made great strides in refining 
the headquarters mission to eliminate overlaps and redundant 
review layers. These changes have been beneficial, resulting in 
a more efficient and cost effective Corps.

             General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil

    Language included under Section 101 restates language 
contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60, and earlier Energy and Water 
Appropriations Acts which requires that no fully allocated 
funding policy shall be applied to projects for which funds are 
identified in the Committee report accompanying the fiscal year 
2001 Act in certain accounts.
    Language included under Section 102 restates language 
contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60 which places a limit on credits 
and reimbursements allowable per project and annually.
    Language included under Section 103 restates language 
contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2000, Public Law 106-60, and earlier Energy and Water 
Appropriations Acts which prohibits the use of funds to revise 
the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual when a Federal 
official knows that such revisions provides for increase in 
springtime water releases during spring heavy rainfall or snow 
melt.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $39,233,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      39,940,000
House allowance.........................................      39,940,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,940,000

    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2001 to carry 
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 
totals $39,940,000. An appropriation of $19,566,000 has been 
provided for Central Utah project construction; $14,158,000 for 
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation; 
and $5,000,000 for the Utah reclamation mitigation and 
conservation account. Finally, the Committee recommendation 
provides $1,216,000 for program administration and oversight.
    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central 
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes 
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and 
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation 
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. 
The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the 
Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation 
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.

                         Bureau of Reclamation


                      Water and Related Resources

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $605,992,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     643,058,000
House allowance.........................................     635,777,000
Committee recommendation................................     655,192,000

    An appropriation of $655,192,000 is recommended by the 
Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 
following table along with the budget request.

                                                   BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Budget estimate               House allowance          Committee recommendation
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Facility                      Facility                      Facility
           Project title                Total     Allocated to    Resource      operations,     Resource      operations,     Resource      operations,
                                    Federal cost      date       management    maintenance,    management    maintenance,    management    maintenance,
                                                                     and            and            and            and            and            and
                                                                 development  rehabilitation   development  rehabilitation   development  rehabilitation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              ARIZONA

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS         ............  ............  ............          6,762   ............          6,762   ............          6,762
 SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT...........
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT...........     4,363,086     3,491,993        33,667  ..............        39,467  ..............        38,667  ..............
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY            451,578       410,172         1,068         10,315          1,068         10,315          1,068         10,315
 CONTROL, TITLE I.................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND            145,018        98,406         3,722            380          3,722            380          3,722            380
 LEVEE SYSTEM.....................
HOPI/WESTERN NAVAJO WATER                  2,000  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............         1,000  ..............
 DEVELOPMENT PLAN.................
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS     ............  ............           300  ..............           300  ..............           300  ..............
 PROGRAM..........................
SOUTH CENTRAL ARIZONA               ............  ............           690  ..............           890  ..............           690  ..............
 INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS             64,983        20,435         5,189  ..............         5,189  ..............         5,189  ..............
 SETTLEMENT ACT...................
TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION..         6,190         4,639           550  ..............           550  ..............           550  ..............
TUCSON AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND          1,000           600           300  ..............           300  ..............           300  ..............
 REUSE STUDY......................
YUMA AREA PROJECTS................  ............  ............         1,738         17,450          1,738         17,450          1,738         17,450

            CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT...................        38,197        36,681           666            401            666            401            666            401
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.  ............  ............         1,293  ..............         1,793  ..............           793  ..............
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT        20,000         1,500           500  ..............           500  ..............           824  ..............
 RECYCLING PROJ...................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:
    AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION,           2,824,760       536,086         4,740         10,708         10,240         10,708          4,740         10,708
     AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT.....
    DELTA DIVISION................       352,157       220,117        14,636          4,706         14,636          4,706         14,636          4,706
    EAST SIDE DIVISION............  ............  ............           585          3,595            585          3,595            585          3,595
    FRIANT DIVISION...............           477           198         4,170          2,531          4,170          2,531          4,170          2,531
    MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS       721,442       372,716        11,824          1,009         11,824          1,009         11,824          1,009
    REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS,        ............  ............  ............          8,013   ............          8,013   ............          8,013
     EXTRAORDINARY MAINT..........
    SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION.....       526,208       403,573         6,171          1,612          8,691          1,612          7,691          1,612
    SAN FELIPE DIVISION...........       361,717       310,473           897  ..............           897  ..............           897  ..............
    SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION..........       287,301        83,037         2,608  ..............         2,608  ..............         2,608  ..............
    SHASTA DIVISION...............       300,078       292,555         3,474          7,356          3,474          7,356          3,474          7,356
    TRINITY RIVER DIVISION........       357,451       326,856         7,116          4,791          7,116          4,791          7,116          4,791
    WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS....  ............  ............           897          6,490            897          6,490            897          6,490
    WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN     1,553,060       579,294         6,385          5,447          7,385          5,447          6,385          5,447
     LUIS UNIT....................
    YIELD FEASIBILITY               ............  ............         1,800  ..............         1,800  ..............         1,800  ..............
     INVESTIGATION................
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION         13,970         1,500         2,000  ..............         2,000  ..............         2,000  ..............
 PROJECT..........................
LOS ANGELES AREA WATER RECLAMATION/       69,970        69,230           740  ..............           740  ..............           740  ..............
 REUSE PROJ.......................
MISSION BASIN BRACKISH GROUNDWATER  ............  ............  ............  ..............           503  ..............  ............  ..............
 DESALTING DEMO...................
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER         20,000         1,500         2,000  ..............         5,000  ..............         2,000  ..............
 RECYCLING PROJ...................
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER.             20,000         1,500         2,000  ..............         2,000  ..............         2,000  ..............
 RECLAMATION PROJ.................
ORLAND PROJECT....................  ............  ............  ............            617   ............            617   ............            617
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.......        10,000         3,700         1,000  ..............         5,000  ..............         1,000  ..............
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION         172,590        50,300         7,500  ..............         7,500  ..............         7,500  ..............
 PROGRAM..........................
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT.........        38,090        24,942         2,000  ..............         2,000  ..............         2,000  ..............
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION          109,959        19,076         3,500  ..............         3,500  ..............         3,500  ..............
 AND REUSE PROG...................
SOLANO PROJECT....................  ............  ............         1,084          1,088          1,084          1,088          1,084          1,088
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS  ............  ............           624  ..............           624  ..............           624  ..............
 PROGRAM..........................
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT, CASITAS DAM        37,182        27,600  ............          5,500   ............          5,500   ............          5,500

             COLORADO

ANIMAS-LAPLATA PROJECT, SECTIONS 5  ............        69,856         2,000  ..............         2,000  ..............         2,000  ..............
 AND 8............................
COLLBRAN PROJECT..................  ............  ............           132            967            132            967            132            967
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT.....  ............  ............           355          7,381            355          7,381            355          7,381
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...  ............  ............           188  ..............           188  ..............           188  ..............
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT..........  ............  ............           102             16            102             16            102             16
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT........  ............  ............           285          4,653            285          4,653            285          4,653
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP.........  ............  ............           412            507            412            507            412            507
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY   ............  ............           469          1,291            469          1,291            469          1,291
 PROJECT..........................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN          ............  ............            69  ..............            69  ..............            69  ..............
 INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........
LOWER GUNNISON BASIN UNIT, CRBSCP,  ............  ............  ............            332   ............            332   ............            332
 TITLE II.........................
MANCOS PROJECT....................  ............  ............            42             22             42             22             42             22
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE  ............  ............  ............          2,058   ............          2,058   ............          2,058
 II...............................
PINE RIVER PROJECT................  ............  ............            90             58             90             58             90             58
PUEBLO DAM, FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS      ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
 PROJECT..........................
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED     ............  ............           410          2,812            410          2,812            410          2,812
 BASIN/CONEJOS DIV................
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT...............  ............  ............           287             23            287             23            287             23

               IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS...............  ............  ............         1,746          5,683          1,746          5,683          1,746          5,683
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON           91,834        47,675         4,622  ..............         4,622  ..............         7,122  ..............
 RECOVERY PROJECT.................
DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY,                825           225           250  ..............           250  ..............         1,500  ..............
 BOISE PROJECT....................
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......  ............  ............           248  ..............           248  ..............           248  ..............
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS............  ............  ............         3,466          1,841          3,766          1,841          3,466          1,841
MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAINWATER              1,791            71           288  ..............           288  ..............           288  ..............
 MANAGEMENT PROJECT...............

              KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....  ............  ............           400  ..............           400  ..............           400  ..............
WICHITA PROJECT...................  ............  ............  ............            226   ............            226   ............            226

              MONTANA

CANYON FERRY RESRVOIR.............           325            75  ............  ..............  ............  ..............           325  ..............
FORT PECK RURAL COUNTY WATER               5,800         4,800  ............  ..............  ............  ..............         1,500  ..............
 SYSTEM...........................
FORT PECK, DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER         1,595         1,160  ............  ..............  ............  ..............           435  ..............
 SYSTREM..........................
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT..............  ............  ............  ............            283   ............            283   ............            283
MILK RIVER PROJECT................  ............  ............           325            512            325            512            325            512
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....  ............  ............           251  ..............           251  ..............           251  ..............
ROCKY BOYS INDIAN WATER RIGHTS      ............  ............        16,000  ..............  ............  ..............        16,000  ..............
 SETTLEMENT.......................

             NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT..............  ............  ............            35             53             35             53   ............             53
NORTH LOOP DIVISION, MIRDAN CANAL.         2,000  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............  ............          1,750
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...  ............  ............            17  ..............            17  ..............            17  ..............

              NEVADA

LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM..  ............  ............           800  ..............           800  ..............         1,500  ..............
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT............  ............  ............         6,864          1,577          6,864          1,577          6,864          1,577
NEWLANDS PROJECT WATER RIGHTS FUND         7,000         1,500  ............  ..............  ............  ..............         2,700  ..............
WALKER RIVER BASIN PROJECT........  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............           300  ..............

            NEW MEXICO

CARLSBAD PROJECT..................  ............  ............         2,345            607          2,345            607          2,345            857
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY...  ............  ............  ............  ..............           250  ..............           250  ..............
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT.........  ............  ............         2,604          8,480          2,604          8,480          6,362          8,480
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............           450  ..............
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE     ............  ............  ............            176   ............            176   ............            176
 PROJECT..........................
RIO GRANDE PROJECT................  ............  ............           947          2,287            947          2,287            947          2,287
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN                ............  ............           183  ..............           183  ..............           183  ..............
 INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........
SO. NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS           ............  ............           238  ..............           238  ..............           238  ..............
 INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS..........
TUCUMARI PROJECT..................  ............  ............            18              5             18              5             18              5
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN              ............  ............           164  ..............           164  ..............           164  ..............
 INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...........
VELARDE COMMUNITY DITCH PROJECT...        29,464        25,584         3,880  ..............         3,880  ..............         3,880  ..............

           NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....  ............  ............           387  ..............           387  ..............           387  ..............
DAKOTA TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS        ............  ............           187  ..............           187  ..............           187  ..............
 PROGRAM..........................
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P-SMBP...     1,526,449       646,298        17,416          3,875         17,416          3,875         21,416          3,875

             OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT..................  ............  ............  ............            168   ............            168   ............            168
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT...............  ............  ............  ............            535   ............            535   ............            535
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT.............  ............  ............  ............            232   ............            232   ............            232
NORMAN PROJECT....................  ............  ............  ............            163   ............            163   ............            163
OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM...  ............  ............           234  ..............           234  ..............           234  ..............
W.C AUSTIN PROJECT................  ............  ............  ............            262   ............            262   ............            262
WASHTIA BASIN PROJECT.............  ............  ............  ............            638   ............            638   ............            638

              OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT.............  ............  ............           384            307            384            307            384            307
DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION            1,990           990           500  ..............           500  ..............         1,000  ..............
 PROJECT..........................
DESCHUTES PROJECT.................  ............  ............           294            137            294            137            294            137
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS...........  ............  ............           205            249            205            249            205            249
GRANDE RONDE WATER OPTIMIZATION            1,767         1,117            50  ..............            50  ..............            50  ..............
 STUDY............................
KLAMATH PROJECT...................  ............  ............        10,837            348         10,837            348         10,837            348
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.....  ............  ............           601  ..............           601  ..............           601  ..............
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT   ............  ............           260            623            260            623            260            623
 DIVISION.........................
TUALATIN PROJECT..................  ............  ............           197            123            197            123            197            123
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY                 250  ............           100  ..............  ............  ..............           100  ..............
 FEASIBILITY STUDY................
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III            790           640           100  ..............           100  ..............           100  ..............
 STUDY............................
UMATILLA PROJECT..................  ............  ............           571          1,723            571          1,723            571          1,723

           SOUTH DAKOTA

MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT....       137,000        70,426         6,000             40         10,960             40          6,000             40
MNI WICONI PROJECT................       375,970       157,221        23,570          6,165         27,570          6,165         23,570          6,165
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT..............  ............  ............  ............             30   ............             30   ............             30

               TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT.................  ............  ............            31  ..............            31  ..............            31  ..............
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT............  ............  ............  ............            131   ............            131   ............            131
NUECES RIVER PROJECT..............  ............  ............  ............            393   ............            393   ............            393
PALMETTO BEND PROJECT.............  ............  ............  ............            546   ............            546   ............            546
SAN ANGELO PROJECT................  ............  ............  ............            262   ............            262   ............            262
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......  ............  ............           346  ..............           596  ..............           346  ..............

               UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT.....................  ............  ............            62             11             62             11             62             11
MOON LAKE PROJECT.................  ............  ............            15              5             15              5             15              5
NAVAJO SANDSTONE AQUIFER RECHARGE            875           250           250  ..............           250  ..............           250  ..............
 STUDY............................
NEWTON PROJECT....................  ............  ............            39             14             39             14             39             14
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS        ............  ............           230  ..............           230  ..............           230  ..............
 PROGRAM..........................
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT...............  ............  ............            76             29             76             29             76             29
PROVO RIVER PROJECT...............  ............  ............           401            340            401            340            401            340
SCOFIELD PROJECT..................  ............  ............            91             24             91             24             91             24
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS        ............  ............           235  ..............           235  ..............           235  ..............
 PROGRAM..........................
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT.........  ............  ............            88              7             88              7             88              7
WEBER BASIN PROJECT...............        19,639        18,033         1,267            141          1,267            141          1,267            141
WEBER RIVER PROJECT...............  ............  ............           296             32            296             32            296             32

            WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT............  ............  ............         3,600          7,524          3,600          7,524          3,600          7,524
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.  ............  ............           264  ..............           264  ..............           264  ..............
YAKIMA PROJECT....................  ............  ............           523          7,483            523          7,483            523          7,483
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER                 178,920        22,388        11,056  ..............        11,056  ..............        11,056  ..............
 ENHANCEMENT PROJECT..............

              WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT..................  ............  ............             4          5,597              4          5,597              4          5,597
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT..............  ............  ............            19          1,295             19          1,295             19          1,295
SHOSHONE PROJECT..................  ............  ............            42            905             42            905             42            905
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....  ............  ............            70  ..............            70  ..............            70  ..............

              VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY             75,000        35,886        11,085  ..............        11,085  ..............        11,085  ..............
 CONTROL, TITLE II................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,     ............  ............         3,813          1,455          3,813          1,455          3,813          1,455
 SECTION 5........................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,           90,440        56,153         7,135  ..............         7,135  ..............         7,135  ..............
 SECTION 8, RFW...................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY              61,000        40,435           150  ..............            75  ..............           150  ..............
 IMPROVEMENT......................
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
    DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.  ............  ............  ............          1,700   ............          1,700   ............          1,700
    INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION  ............  ............  ............         51,600   ............         51,600   ............         51,600
    SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING   ............  ............  ............         17,500   ............         17,500   ............         17,500
     DAMS.........................
    SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE       ............  ............  ............          1,000   ............          1,000   ............          1,000
     ACTION STUDIES...............
DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE    ............  ............         3,000  ..............         2,000  ..............         2,500  ..............
 PROGRAM..........................
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE        ............  ............           500  ..............         1,900  ..............         5,000  ..............
 PROGRAM..........................
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.....  ............  ............         3,169  ..............         3,000  ..............         3,169  ..............
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER     ............  ............  ............            309   ............            309   ............            309
 RESPONSE PROG....................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY              162,153        71,320        12,179  ..............        12,179  ..............        12,179  ..............
 IMPLEMENT. PROG..................
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY       ............  ............         1,824  ..............         1,000  ..............           874  ..............
 COORDINATION.....................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM               ............  ............         2,155  ..............         1,500  ..............         1,755  ..............
 ADMINISTRATION...................
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES  ............  ............            30          4,740             30          3,892             30          4,240
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY     ............  ............  ............          1,400   ............          1,000   ............          1,000
 PROGRAM..........................
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES.......  ............  ............         1,842  ..............         1,700  ..............         1,842  ..............
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.  ............  ............         6,484  ..............         5,232  ..............         5,884  ..............
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS     ............  ............        13,729  ..............        13,729  ..............         7,981  ..............
 PROGRAM..........................
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL         ............  ............  ............            506   ............            506   ............            506
 OPERATIONS.......................
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE          ............  ............         1,300  ..............         1,300  ..............         1,300  ..............
 FOUNDATION.......................
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM...  ............  ............         8,500  ..............         7,680  ..............         8,200  ..............
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF   ............  ............         1,254  ..............           884  ..............         1,254  ..............
 WATER MARKETING..................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM   ............  ............           169            865             96            538            169            865
 MANAGEMENT.......................
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM-- ............  ............         3,232         25,667          3,232         27,417          3,232         25,667
 OTHER PROJ.......................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES............  ............  ............         1,023            473          1,023            473          1,023            473
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM..  ............  ............           464  ..............           436  ..............           464  ..............
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION....  ............  ............         4,914  ..............         4,696  ..............         4,914  ..............
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT   ............  ............         3,743  ..............         3,743  ..............         3,743  ..............
 ACT--TITLE XXVIII................
RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE       ............  ............         2,766  ..............         1,891  ..............         2,766  ..............
 PROGRAM ADMIN....................
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:
    ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT              21,727        13,802         1,225  ..............         1,000  ..............         1,225  ..............
     RESEARCH PROGRAM.............
    APPLIED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY        99,967        64,783         3,249  ..............         3,242  ..............         3,249  ..............
     DEVELOPMENT..................
    DESALINATION RESEARCH                 21,300  ............           300  ..............           300  ..............         1,300  ..............
     DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM..........
    HYDROELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE           4,044           584           660  ..............           215  ..............           660  ..............
     PROT/EHNANCE.................
    TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM         8,199         3,091           283  ..............           283  ..............           283  ..............
    WATERSHED/RIVER SYSTEMS               19,996         6,313           933  ..............           933  ..............           933  ..............
     MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...........
SITE SECURITY.....................  ............  ............  ............          1,043   ............            754   ............          1,043
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION....  ............  ............           263  ..............           257  ..............           263  ..............
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES....  ............  ............         1,840  ..............         1,000  ..............         1,000  ..............
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND     ............  ............         1,460  ..............         3,960  ..............         1,960  ..............
 REUSE PROGRAM....................
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES- ............  ............            50  ..............            50  ..............            50  ..............
  TECH SUPPORT....................
WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION   ............  ............         7,605  ..............         6,600  ..............         7,100  ..............
 PROGRAM..........................
WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT..............  ............  ............         3,750  ..............         3,595  ..............         3,250  ..............
UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON    ............  ............       -31,120  ..............       -49,686  ..............       -41,720  ..............
 ANTICIPATED DELAYS...............
FY 2000 RESCISSION--P.L. 106-113..  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTER..........  ............  ............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............  ............  ..............
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED      ............  ............       353,822        289,236        346,655        289,122        364,856        290,336
       RESOURCES..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Budget Limitations and Reductions

    Severely constrained spending limits imposed by the 
Congressional Budget Resolution have made it most difficult for 
the Committee to formulate a balanced Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. In order 
to adhere to the subcommittee's allocations, address the 
critical ongoing activities, correct program imbalances 
contained in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget, and 
respond to the numerous requests of the Members, the Committee 
finds it necessary to recommend numerous reductions and 
adjustments to funding levels proposed in the budget. Finally, 
the Committee regrets that many worthwhile projects could not 
be recommended for funding because of the lack of authorization 
and the shortfall in resources.
    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.
    Central Arizona project, Arizona.--The Committee has 
recommended an appropriation of $38,667,000 for the central 
Arizona project. This is $5,000,000 over the budget request for 
fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommendation includes 
$27,600,000 for the Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project and 
$1,900,000 for the San Carlos Project. The Committee urges the 
Secretary of the Interior to proceed with rehabilitation of the 
facilities of the Federal San Carlos Project pursuant to the 
San Carlos Project Act of 1924, as amended. The Committee 
believes the Bureau of Reclamation should consider using the 
San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District to perform this 
work, if appropriate, and urges the Bureau of Reclamation to 
work cooperatively with the District in this regard.
    Hopi/Western Navajo Water Development Study, AZ.--The 
Committee has included $1,000,000 for the Bureau to initiate a 
comprehensive study of the water development requirements to 
serve the municipal and industrial needs on the Hopi and 
Western Navajo Indian Reservations.
    Almost all domestic municipal and industrial water in the 
area is supplied from groundwater, primarily from the ``N'' 
aquifer which is a finite resource. Concerns about the adequacy 
and impacts of continued reliance on groundwater have led to a 
number of studies of alternative water supply projects, 
including pipelines from Lake Powell, new well fields, and 
development of surface supplies near the southwest corner of 
the Navajo Reservation. These studies have been conducted by 
the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, the Department of the Interior, 
and others involved in ongoing negotiations to settle the 
various Indian water rights claims in the Little Colorado 
watershed. However, a comprehensive water development plan is 
needed to identify the most cost-effective projects to meet the 
objectives of providing good quality, reliable municipal and 
industrial water to the major communities on the Hopi 
Reservation, and the western Navajo Reservation, and to 
minimize impacts to environmental resources, including but not 
limited to, springs flowing from the ``N'' aquifer.
    Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, CA.--The 
Committee recommendation for the Sacramento River Division 
includes $9,303,000, an increase of $1,520,000 over the budget 
request. The recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 
fish passage improvements at Red Bluff Dam; and $520,000 for 
the captive broodstock program.
    Salton Sea Study, CA.--The Committee is aware of ongoing 
efforts by the Bureau of Reclamation to complete a feasibility 
study identifying potential options to stabilize and reclaim 
the Salton Sea. The authorizing legislation for this study 
(Public Law 105-372) expressly prohibits consideration of any 
option that relies on the importation of new or additional 
water from the Colorado River. The Committee is concerned that, 
in preparing its Draft EIS, the Bureau has expended funds to 
evaluate the potential use of flood flows from the Colorado 
River for the Salton Sea despite the clear prohibition 
expressed in the authorizing legislation, and the potential 
impacts to other lower Colorado River basin States. The 
Committee intends to carefully monitor this matter, and expects 
the Bureau to abide by the prohibitions expressed in Public Law 
105-372.
    Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project, ID, OR, 
and WA.--The Committee has provided an increase of $2,500,000 
over the budget request for acquisition of water to increase 
streamflows through flow augmentation to aid in salmon and 
steelhead recovery. The Committee directs that any water 
acquired from these or any other funds provided herein will be 
acquired in compliance with existing State water law and only 
from willing sellers.
    Canyon Ferry Reservoir, MT.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $325,000 to deepen Broadwater Bay once environmental 
compliance work has been completed.
    Fort Peck Rural Water System, MT.--The Committee has 
recommended $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
complete construction of the Fort Peck County Rural Water 
System, MT project.
    Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, MT.--An amount 
of $435,000 is included for the Bureau to continue planning on 
the Fort Peck, Dry Prairie rural water system in Montana.
    Mirdan Canal, North Loup Division, NE.--The Committee 
understands that in May 1999 the Mirdan delivery canal of the 
North Loup project in Nebraska experienced major subsidence 
problems, and that in order to provide continued service the 
Twin Loup Reclamation District has undertaken temporary 
repairs. Further, the Bureau of Reclamation has completed a 
Technical Memorandum Report on the subsidence, and based on 
that report has recommended that approximately 3,300 feet of 
the canal be replaced. The estimated cost of the repair work is 
$2,000,000, and the Committee understands that the Bureau has 
$250,000 available in fiscal year 2000 to allow completion of 
technical studies and contract specifications. The Committee 
has provided $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2001 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to complete the canal repairs.
    Garrison Diversion Project, ND.--The Committee has included 
$25,291,000, an increase of $4,000,000, for the Garrison 
Diversion, ND project. The additional funds will allow the 
Bureau of Reclamation to continue development of municipal, 
rural, and the industrial Indian water systems. The 
recommendation includes an additional $2,000,000 each for State 
and Indian municipal, rural and industrial programs.
    Jamestown Reservoir, ND.--Except for the 14 boat docks 
receiving the 1999 temporary permits by the Stutsman County 
Park Board, the Bureau of Reclamation's managing partner, the 
Committee recognizes and supports the Resource Management Plan 
(RMP) issued by the Reclamation's Dakotas Area Office for 
Jamestown Reservoir in North Dakota. The Committee encourages 
the Bureau of Reclamation to take necessary steps to implement 
the RMP and to continue efforts to eliminate the private 
exclusive use of public lands at their reservoirs. The 14 docks 
shall be made a non-transferable permanent life estate to the 
annual permitee under the conditions that (1) that the docks 
meet Bureau of Reclamation design and construction standards 
for health and safety, (2) that the docks continue as removable 
features, (3) that the Reclamation continues appropriate 
maintenance within the lands excluded for the Jamestown 
reservoir, (4) that the Reclamation continues, through its 
managing partner, to provide an annual nontransferable permit 
based on fair market value, and (5) that the permitees continue 
to accept all liability associated with the structure and its 
use.
    Further, the Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation 
to take the actions necessary to meet the increasing public 
recreation needs at Jamestown and at other facilities by 
locating public boat docks in the immediate vicinity of 
existing private docks. Nothing in this provision shall modify 
and/or amend any other existing law, projects or reservoirs.
    Eastern New Mexico Water Supply, NM.--An amount of $250,000 
is recommended for the Eastern New Mexico Water Supply project 
to allow for feasibility study completion by the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    Jicarilla Water System Study, NM.--The Committee directs 
that $200,000 of the funds recommended for the Native American 
Affairs Program be used to undertake studies, in consultation 
and cooperation with the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, of the most 
feasible method of developing a safe and adequate municipal, 
rural and industrial water supply for the residents of the 
Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation in New Mexico.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, NM.--An appropriation of 
$14,842,000 is recommended for the Middle Rio Grande Project in 
New Mexico.
    The Committee recommendation provides the full budget 
request for acquisition of water for endangered species 
purposes; and an increase of $500,000 over the budget request 
for research, monitoring, and modeling evapotranspiration from 
open water and riparian vegetation to provide water use 
information for use in daily water management activities. The 
Bureau is to work cooperatively with the interagency workgroup 
on these activities.
    The Committee has provided $258,000 for the Bureau to 
implement a program for the transplant of minnow larvae and 
young-of-year and related monitoring activities (including fish 
relocation, transplant site evaluation, collection and spawning 
of adults, stocking larvae, collecting eggs, rearing stocking 
juveniles, and monitoring stocked fish). The Committee 
understands that there will be matching funds for these 
activities by State and local entities.
    The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for habitat 
conservation and restoration activities along the middle Rio 
Grande River valley from below Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of 
Elephant Butte Lake. The Bureau is to continue to work with 
interested parties to evaluate and define the scope of the 
habitat and restoration measures to be undertaken in order to 
ensure that proposed work compliments, rather than duplicates, 
other ongoing activities.
    Finally, all parties, Tribal, State and local governments, 
Federal agencies, and water users, are to be commended for 
their efforts to address the complex issues related to recovery 
activities along the Rio Grande in New Mexico. But more can and 
must be done to establish a single entity, reflecting the range 
of interests, along the Rio Grande if the recovery effort is to 
be successful and to ensure the efficient use of available 
resources. Further, a single comprehensive group will ensure 
that activities undertaken are based on sound science and 
contribute directly to silvery minnow recovery. Future funding 
will be dependent upon a program plan for recovery activities 
that is supported by State and local governments, Federal 
agencies, Tribes, and water users. Coming to consensus will not 
be easy and will surely take time to reach, but in the long 
term will result in success in species recovery with minimum 
impacts to all parties. To this end, the attention of all 
parties is directed to the successful effort on the Upper 
Colorado to address the endangered species issues in that 
region.
    Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, NM.--The Committee has 
provided $450,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to complete all 
remaining feasibility studies for the Navajo-Gallup Water 
Supply project in New Mexico. The feasibility report, which 
includes costs, benefits, environmental analysis, and 
recommendations on a potential project, is needed in order to 
proceed with a project construction authorization. The 
Committee understands that the Navajo Tribe and the City of 
Gallup have agreed to a plan, which was begun last year, to 
complete this work over about a 2-year period, and to support 
construction of what ever project may be supported at the 
conclusion of the feasibility phase.
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Species Program.--The 
Committee recommendation for the Upper Colorado River 
Endangered Species Program includes the full budget request for 
habitat conservation and restoration activities in the San Juan 
River Basin proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Lake Mead and Las Vegas Wash, NV.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to continue development of a comprehensive project 
plan for the restoration of wetlands and associated water 
resource issues at Lake Mead and Las Vegas Wash in Nevada.
    Newlands Project Water Rights Fund, NV.--The Committee has 
included $2,700,000 for the Newlands Water Rights Fund 
authorized by the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights 
Settlement Act to be utilized to pay for purchasing and 
retiring water rights in the Carson Division of the Newlands 
Reclamation Project.
    Walker River Basin Project, NV.--An appropriation of 
$300,000 is recommended for the Bureau of Reclamation to begin 
the preparation of an EIS for water rights acquisition in the 
basin, recovery of the Walker Lake ecosystem and recovery of 
the Lahontan cutthroat trout fishery.
    Tooele Wastewater Reuse Project, UT.--The Committee directs 
the Bureau of Reclamation to use available funds, estimated to 
be $43,614, to complete the Federal share of the Tooele 
Wastewater Reuse, UT project as provided under title XVI of 
Public Law 102-575.
    Columbia Basin Project, WA.--The Committee is aware that 
the Bureau of Reclamation suspended publication of annual crop 
reports for the 1993 through 1998, but is currently compiling 
data for a 1999 crop report which is to be published later this 
year. The Committee supports the efforts of the Bureau of 
Reclamation to resume publishing these reports again. To the 
extent practicable, the Committee believes that the Bureau 
should compile crop reports for the Columbia Basin Project for 
the period of 1993 through 1998 and make them available to 
interested parties.
    Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--An additional 
$500,000 is provided for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
participate with the City of Espanola, NM in a feasibility 
study to investigate opportunities to reclaim and reuse 
municipal wastewater, and naturally impaired surface and 
groundwater.
    Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has included 
$5,000,000 for Drought Emergency Assistance. The additional 
funding over the budget request is required due to continuing 
severe drought conditions that currently exist in New Mexico 
and several other western States. The funding provided herein 
shall be used in accordance with Section 202 of Public Law 106-
60.

               bureau of reclamation loan program account

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $11,577,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       9,369,000
House allowance.........................................       9,369,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,369,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,369,000, 
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
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Total                        Budget estimate              House allowance          Committee recommendation
             Project title                 Federal     Allocated  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             cost       to date    Investigations    Planning   Investigations    Planning   Investigations    Planning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              LOAN PROGRAM

               CALIFORNIA

CASTROVILLE IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY           14,284       11,864          1,300   ...........          1,300   ...........          1,300   ...........
 PROJECT...............................
CHINO BASIN DESALINATION PROJECT.......  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
SALINAS VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION.......        9,557        8,200            800   ...........            800   ...........            800   ...........
SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT........       28,100       15,681          6,844   ...........          6,844   ...........          6,844   ...........
TEMESCAL VALLEY PROJECT................  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........

                VARIOUS

LOAN ADMINISTRATION....................  ...........  ...........            425   ...........            425   ...........            425   ...........
FISCAL YEAR 2000 RESCISSION--PUBLIC LAW  ...........  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........  ..............  ...........
 106-113...............................
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, LOAN PROGRAM..............  ...........  ...........          9,369   ...........          9,369   ...........          9,369   ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                central valley project restoration fund

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      38,382,000
House allowance.........................................      38,382,000
Committee recommendation................................      38,382,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,382,000, 
the same as the budget request for the Central Valley project 
restoration fund.
    The Central Valley project restoration fund was authorized 
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of 
Public Law 102-575. This fund 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.

               California bay-delta ecosystem restoration

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      60,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

    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 President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 
proposes language which would extend, through the 
appropriations process, the funding authority for the CALFED 
program. The Committee has consistently expressed concern 
regarding the duplication and overlap of CALFED activities with 
Central Valley Improvement Act programs and other activities 
funded under various other programs within the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and that the appropriate authorizing committees of 
the Congress should thoroughly review and specifically 
authorize the CALFED program. The Committee believes that it is 
essential the committees of jurisdiction in these complicated 
matters have the opportunity to develop legislation to address 
these issues. While some hearings have been held, no 
authorization has been enacted. Therefore, the Committee is not 
able to recommend an appropriation for fiscal year 2001. 
However, the Committee understands that there is significant 
funding in the pipeline which will allow activities to continue 
in fiscal year 2001.

                          Working Capital Fund

    Boise Project Office Replacement.--The Committee has been 
informed that the Boise Project Office, which was built in 
1912, does not meet current building codes and is inadequate 
for modern day technology, and is in serious need of 
replacement. The Committee would not object to the Bureau of 
Reclamation using the Working Capital Fund to replace the 
facility if justified based on a normal lease, purchase 
analysis required by OMB. Further, the Committee understands 
that the proposed replacement facility will be jointly funded 
by the U.S. Geologic Survey who would share the new office 
space.

                   policy and administrative expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $47,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      50,224,000
House allowance.........................................      47,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,224,000

    The Committee recommendation for general administrative 
expenses is $50,224,000. This is the same as the budget 
request.
    The policy and administrative expenses program provides for 
the executive direction and management of all reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, Denver, 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.

             General Provision--Department of the Interior

    Language is included under Section 203 which limits to not 
more than $7,687,000, adjusted for inflation, funding for the 
Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program.
    In the past, the Committee has expressed concern about the 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program's increased funding 
requirements and the steadily expanding scope of its 
activities. In fiscal year 2001 the requested funding level 
continued the upward trend and as a result, the Committee 
included language in Section 203 that limits the funding level 
from power revenues for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 
Program to no more than $7,687,000, adjusted for inflation. The 
Committee encourages the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 
Program to prioritize its work based on project importance and 
to seek additional funding from outside non-Federal sources if 
necessary.

                    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.

                safeguards and security budget amendment

    The President submitted a safeguards and security budget 
amendment as reflected in House Document 106-251 on June 6, 
2000. The amendment's intent is to reorganize all safeguards 
and security functions at the Department under the Office of 
Security and Emergency Operations. The effect of the amendment 
would be to impose centralized Department-wide management of 
security costs and operations, including the security of 
nuclear weapons, nuclear secrets, nuclear materials and defense 
nuclear facilities. The Committee views the amendment to be 
inconsistent with the requirements of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration Act enacted as part of Public Law 106-
65, which gives the Administrator of the NNSA authority over 
and responsibility for safeguards and security for all programs 
and activities within the NNSA. As such, the Committee has not 
considered the budget amendment.
    The Committee has sought to accurately represent the 
President's budget request, including the safeguards and 
security amendment, in the report and accompanying tables. The 
Committee concurs with, and has recommended the amounts 
requested for safeguards and security and has reflected those 
amounts within each of the individual program lines as proposed 
in the original budget request.

                           contractor travel

    For fiscal year 2000, the conference agreement included a 
statutory provision limiting reimbursement of Department of 
Energy management and operating contractors for travel expenses 
to no more than $150,000,000 and required contractor travel to 
be consistent with the rules and regulations for Federal 
employees. The substantial reduction in allowable travel 
reimbursements has successfully imposed efficiencies into the 
system for managing contractor travel and has produced cost 
savings due to the use of standard Federal travel rules. 
However, the Committee is concerned that the fiscal year 2000 
travel ceiling has caused an unintended reduction in 
programmatic and scientific travel that is necessary for 
fulfilling the Department's mission. The Committee 
recommendation limits contractor travel for fiscal year 2001 at 
the level proposed by the administration--$200,000,000--and 
believes that to be an appropriate level for travel, but still 
well below the previous baseline.

              laboratory directed research and development

    The Committee views laboratory directed research and 
development (LDRD) as an integral and essential component of 
the Department's ability to respond to changing needs and 
requirements. The LDRD program is necessary to maintain the 
preeminence of the national laboratories in the areas of 
science and engineering, and significantly strengthens the 
laboratories ability to attract and retain the best scientific 
talent. In fiscal year 2000, Congress limited LDRD expenditures 
to 4 percent for defense programs and eliminated the use of 
LDRD funding within environmental management programs. The 
Department has testified that the reduction of LDRD funding 
produced serious and negative impacts to ongoing research, 
resulted in lost knowledge and capabilities to meet future 
national defense needs, and caused the cancellation of 
important weapons related research.
    The administration has proposed that LDRD funding be 
restored to at least 6 percent for fiscal year 2001. Both the 
Department's Stockpile Stewardship Program Review (the 30-day 
review) of November, 1999, and the Laboratory Operations Board 
Report of January, 2000, recommended restoring LDRD to the 
previous level. The Committee strongly endorses the 
administration's proposal. Furthermore, the Committee strongly 
endorses the use of funds within the environmental management 
program for the purpose of LDRD as a way to strengthen the 
nation's clean-up efforts substantially. Investments in science 
and technology in this area have successfully reduced the long-
term clean-up and mortgage costs of our nation's most 
contaminated sites. Finally, the Committee has included a 
provision to establish an analogous program within the nuclear 
weapons production plants to attract and retain the highest 
quality people through a variety of activities, including the 
development of new production and design concepts and the 
establishment of intern and cooperative student programs. All 
of these efforts will be critical to maintaining the 
Department's most valuable assets--its people.

                             Energy Supply

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $637,962,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 730,692,000
House allowance.........................................     616,482,000
Committee recommendation................................     691,520,000

\1\ Reflects reductions totaling $22,203,000 contained in budget 
amendment H. Doc. 106-251 for Safeguards and Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       renewable energy resources

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $362,240,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 454,817,000
House allowance.........................................     390,519,000
Committee recommendation................................     444,117,000

\1\ Reflects reductions totaling $1,783,000 contained in budget 
amendment H. Doc. 106-251 for Safeguards and Security.

    The Committee recommendation provides $444,117,000, for 
renewable energy resources, an increase of $81,877,000 over the 
current year appropriation.
    The Committee is unable to draw conclusions regarding the 
full 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 hydro, 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.
    Solar building technology research.--The Committee 
recommends $4,500,000 to fund solar building technology 
development. The Committee does not support new activities in 
solar lighting and technology coordination.
    Photovoltaic energy systems.--The Committee recommends 
$76,500,000 for photovoltaic energy systems. Within that 
amount, $18,000,000 is provided for fundamental research 
including: $5,500,000 for measurement and characterization, 
$7,000,000 for basic research/university programs, and 
$3,500,000 for high-performance advanced research. $24,000,000 
is provided for advanced materials and devices. $32,500,000 is 
provided for technology development including: $10,000,000 for 
manufacturing R&D, $15,200,000 for systems engineering and 
reliability, and $3,300,000 to be allocated to the PV building 
integrated R&D, partnerships for technology introduction, and 
million solar roof initiative. No funds are provided for the 
international clean energy initiative. Of the amount provided 
for systems engineering and reliability, $2,000,000 shall be 
used to continue the ongoing research in photovoltaics 
conducted by the Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic 
experiment stations.
    Concentrating solar power.--The Committee recommends 
$14,000,000 for concentrating solar power. Within that amount, 
$3,200,000 is provided for distributed and dispatchable power 
system development, and $10,800,000 is provided for advanced 
components and system research.
    Biomass/biofuels--power systems.--The Committee recommends 
$47,600,000 for biomass/bio-fuels--power systems. $2,000,000 is 
provided for thermochemical conversion. $32,600,000 is provided 
for systems development, but the total does not include funds 
requested for new initiatives within that area. $2,000,000 is 
provided for the feedstock development base program. No funds 
are provided for the regional biomass energy program. 
$11,000,000 is provided for the bioenergy/bioproducts 
initiative.
    Within the amount provided for systems development, 
$1,000,000 is provided for the continuation of biomass research 
at the Energy and Environmental Research Center on the 
integration of biomass with fossil fuels for advanced power 
systems transportation fuels. The Iowa switch grass project is 
fully funded at a level of $6,200,000.
    The recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the McNeil 
biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont, $395,000 for the Vermont 
Agriculture Methane project, and $1,000,000 for the University 
of Louisville to continue research into the commercial 
viability of refinery construction for the production of P-
series fuels.
    The Committee directs the Department to accelerate the 
large-scale biomass demonstration at the Winona, Mississippi 
site and provide a report on its progress by December 31, 2000.
    Biomass/biofuels--transportation.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $43,750,000 for biomass/biofuels 
transportation. $32,000,000 is provided for ethanol production, 
$1,750,000 is provided for renewable diesel alternatives, 
$3,000,000 is provided for feedstock production, and $7,000,000 
is provided for the bioenergy/bioproducts initiative.
    Wind.--The Committee recommendation includes $43,617,000 
for wind energy systems. Within that amount, $20,500,000 is 
provided for applied research, and $16,500,000 is provided for 
turbine research including: $7,100,000 for the next generation 
turbine project, $3,000,000 for advanced turbine concepts, 
$300,000 to conduct small wind turbine projects, $100,000 for 
the cold weather turbine project, $5,000,000 for turbine 
research and testing and $3,617,000 for cooperative research 
and testing.
    Renewable energy production incentive.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the renewable energy 
production incentive.
    Renewable program support.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,000,000 for technical analysis and assistance 
within renewable program support.
    International renewable programs.--The Committee strongly 
supports the U.S. international joint implementation program 
funded in this account and recommends only $6,000,000 for that 
purpose. No funds are recommended for the international clean 
energy initiative. The Committee supports efforts to increase 
international market opportunities for the export and 
deployment of advanced clean energy technologies--end-use 
efficiency, fossil, renewable, and nuclear energy technologies. 
The Administration should improve the Federal Government's role 
in the national and international development, demonstration, 
and deployment of advanced clean energy technologies by 
establishing an interagency working group jointly chaired by 
the Departments of Energy and Commerce and the U.S. Agency for 
International Development. This working group should also 
include representation from the Departments of State and 
Treasury, Environmental Protection Agency, Export-Import Bank, 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Trade and Development 
Agency, and other departments and agencies, as appropriate. The 
Administration should also consult with the private sector and 
other interest groups on the export and deployment of clean 
energy technologies through the establishment of an advisory 
panel. Progress on the international deployment of clean energy 
technologies should be reported annually to Congress by March 
1. The Administration should analyze technology, policy, and 
market opportunities for further international clean energy 
program development and provide Congress a 5-year strategic 
plan by June 1, 2001. This plan should be developed in 
consultation with the advisory panel.
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000, an increase of $2,100,000, 
for capital equipment and general plant projects at the 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
    Geothermal.--The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for 
geothermal technology development, including $3,000,000 for 
GeoPowering the West. The Committee recognizes drilling 
technology improvements as the area most likely to achieve 
enhanced economic viability of geothermal energy and provides 
$13,000,000 for that purpose, an increase of $3,500,000 over 
the request. No funds are provided for small-scale 
verification, the international clean energy initiative, or 
industry support.
    Hydrogen research.--The Committee strongly supports 
research and development of hydrogen technology and recognizes 
it to be one of the most promising and cost effective energy 
sources for the future. The Committee recommends $30,950,000, 
an increase of $6,950,000 over the budget request and 
$6,100,000 more than last year's enacted level. The 
recommendation includes $350,000 for the Montana Trade Port 
Authority in Billings, MT to continue the ongoing resource 
inventory, feasibility study, and development of a Solid Waste 
Hydrogen Fuel Cell manufacturing capability, and $250,000 for 
the gasification of Iowa switch grass and its use in fuel cells 
and $1,500,000 for the ITM Syngas project.
    The Committee encourages demonstration of a dedicated fleet 
of vehicles powered by hydrogen.
    Hydropower.--The Committee commends the Department of 
Energy for recognizing the benefits of and developing advanced 
``fish-friendly'' turbines for hydro-electric generation. The 
Committee recommendation includes $5,500,000 for that effort.
    Renewable Indian energy resources.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $6,600,000 for renewable Indian energy 
resource development including: $1,000,000 to complete the Nome 
diesel efficiency project; $2,300,000 for the Power Creek 
hydroelectric project; $2,000,000 for the Swan Lake Intertie; 
and $1,300,000 for the Indian River hydroelectric turbine 
upgrades.
    Electric energy systems and storage.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $59,000,000 for electric energy systems 
and storage including: $12,000,000 for transmission 
reliability; $41,000,000 for high-temperature superconducting 
research and development; and $6,000,000 for energy storage 
systems. The Committee strongly supports the Department's high 
temperature superconductivity research and development program, 
which promises to revolutionize the generation, transmission 
and conditioning of electricity. The Committee has added 
$9,000,000 to accelerate the development, commercialization, 
and application of high temperature superconductor technologies 
through joint efforts among DOE laboratories, universities, and 
industry. The Committee directs Los Alamos and Oak Ridge 
National Laboratories, based on their advances in coating 
deposition technologies for these materials, to lead and 
support this effort by improving their own capabilities, 
including equipment, facilities, and technical expertise.
    The Committee recommendation of $12,000,000 for 
transmission reliability represents a $9,000,000 increase over 
last year's enacted level, and shall be used as follows: 
$500,000 for the completion of the distributed power 
demonstration begun last year at the Nevada Test Site for the 
purpose of developing and validating interconnection standards; 
and $11,500,000 for power system reliability. The Committee 
notes that with modern supercomputers, it is possible to 
simulate the electric grid system, and accurately predict, 
avoid or respond to local, regional and national outages. Such 
simulation capabilities could prove highly useful in evaluating 
options for electric power generation and distribution. As 
such, the Committee urges the Department to begin a research 
program to develop solutions for grid reliability issues 
through the use of advanced computer simulation capabilities 
available within the national laboratories.
    Renewable program direction.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $18,000,000 for program direction within this account; 
an increase of $180,000 over the current year.

                        nuclear energy programs

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $288,700,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 288,286,000
House allowance.........................................     231,815,000
Committee recommendation................................     262,084,000

\1\ Reflects reductions totaling $20,159,000 contained in budget 
amendment H. Doc. 106-251 for Safeguard and Security.

    The Committee recommendation provides $262,084,000 for 
nuclear energy, a decrease of $26,616,000 from the current year 
appropriation.
    Nuclear energy presently contributes almost 22 percent of 
our nation's electrical power and emits no atmospheric 
pollutants. And, new nuclear technologies promise tremendous 
benefits from an environmental, safety, and cost standpoint. 
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 this challenge. 
However, unlike the emissions of coal, gas, and fuel oil 
plants, the byproducts of fission can be contained. In making 
its recommendations for low emission energy technologies, the 
Committee seeks to achieve a prudent balance among technologies 
that may assist in the future reduction of greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    Advanced radioisotope power systems.--The Committee 
recommends $34,200,000 for advanced radioisotope power systems. 
In making its recommendation, the Committee is providing an 
additional $3,000,000 in order to maintain the infrastructure 
necessary to support future national security activities and 
NASA missions to explore deep space and the surfaces of 
planets.
    Nuclear energy plant optimization.--The recommendation 
includes $5,000,000, the same amount as the request for the 
nuclear energy plant optimization program.
    Nuclear energy research initiative.--The Committee 
recommends $41,500,000 for the nuclear energy research 
initiative and encourages the Department to pursue reactor 
based transmutation in coordination with studies of accelerator 
based transmutation.
    The Committee believes any opportunity to expand the 
prospects for building new nuclear power plants around the 
world is dependent on developing the next generation of plants. 
In recent Congressional testimony, a senior utility executive 
expressed the view that the next nuclear plant to be built in 
the United States would likely be a small, modular design. Such 
``generation IV'' plants would have improved safety, minimized 
proliferation risks, reduced nuclear waste, and much lower 
costs. The DOE's nuclear energy research initiative has begun 
some of the promising research for developing such innovative 
advanced nuclear reactor designs. While the Committee 
encourages the DOE's Generation IV activities, it is clear that 
unless the Department initiates a rigorous, open planning 
process to define the technologies needed and the research that 
must be conducted, this effort will not lead to a program that 
can usher next generation nuclear technologies into reality. 
Therefore the Committee recommends $4,500,000 to develop a road 
map for the commercial deployment of a next generation power 
reactor that will, to the extent possible, have the following 
characteristics: superior economics, no possibility of a core 
melt-down and/or no requirement for a public evacuation plan, 
substantially reduced production of high level waste, highly 
proliferation resistant fuel and waste, and substantially 
improved thermal efficiency. The road map should contain an 
assessment of all available technologies; a summary of actions 
needed for the most promising candidates to be considered as 
viable options within the next 5 to 10 years with consideration 
of regulatory, economic, and technical issues; and an 
evaluation of opportunities for public/private partnerships. 
The road map and supporting technical studies should lead to a 
report by March 2003 providing a recommendation for a preferred 
technology and a conceptual design for the selected option for 
purposes of cost estimating to determine if the selected option 
is economically competitive.
    The Committee also directs the use of $1,000,000 from 
within available funds for the preparation of a detailed 
assessment that analyzes and describes the changes needed to 
existing ALWR designs in order for such designs to be 
considered viable in the U.S. marketplace within the next 5 to 
10 years, considering the regulatory, economic, and 
technological development issues that would need to be 
resolved.
    The primary purpose of the joint United States-Russian 
program for the development of an advanced reactor is the 
design and eventual construction of a demonstration reactor in 
Russia for the purpose of surplus weapons plutonium 
disposition. However, it is important that the United States 
take full advantage of the development of this attractive 
technology for a possible next generation nuclear power reactor 
for United States and foreign markets. Therefore, the Committee 
instructs the Department to explore opportunities to develop 
and exploit this technology for commercial purposes. To further 
this purpose, the bill includes $1,000,000 for the Office of 
Nuclear Energy to begin planning and implementation of 
initiatives such as, but not limited to, commercial fuel 
development and testing, licensing interaction with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, plant cost evaluations, and waste 
disposal assessments.
    The Committee is aware that recent improvements in reactor 
design might make feasible small modular reactors with 
attractive characteristics for remote communities that 
otherwise must rely on shipments of relatively expensive and 
sometimes environmentally undesirable fuels for their electric 
power. To be acceptable, such a reactor would have to be 
inherently safe, be relatively cost effective, have intrinsic 
design features which would deter sabotage or efforts to divert 
nuclear materials, have infrequent re-fuelings, and be largely 
factory constructed and deliverable to remote sites. The 
Committee recommendation provides $1,000,000 for the Department 
to undertake a study to determine the feasibility of and issues 
associated with the deployment of such small reactors and 
provide a report to Congress by May, 2001.
    Fast flux test facility.--The Committee has provided 
$44,010,000 to keep the FFTF in hot standby until the 
Department of Energy determines whether the facility should be 
decommissioned or restarted.
    Nuclear facilities management.--The Committee has provided 
$74,000,000, the amount of the budget request. The Committee 
recommends the name of the budget line be changed from 
``Termination costs'' to ``Nuclear facilities management'' to 
reflect more accurately and more adequately the use of these 
funds.
    Isotopes.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$16,715,000, the same as the budget request, for isotope 
support. The Committee recommends $4,500,000 for the Isotope 
Production Facility at LANSCE, the amount needed for completion 
of the facility.
    Uranium Programs.--The Committee directs that the uranium 
programs activity be transferred from the Office of Nuclear 
Energy to the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste 
Management, beginning in fiscal year 2001. Therefore, the 
Committee recommendation provides no funds within nuclear 
energy for this purpose. Instead, the Committee recommendation 
provides $23,800,000 under defense environmental management, 
and $38,600,000 under non-defense environmental management for 
uranium program activities. The Committee believes that these 
activities are an integral part of the Department's response to 
the environmental issues at the gaseous diffusion plant sites 
in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee and that these activities are 
better managed by a single organization. The Committee remains 
concerned that the Department has not fully characterized all 
of the waste at the gaseous diffusion plants and has not 
produced a plan that accurately represents both the total costs 
and timetable for clean-up. The Department is instructed to 
provide a plan to this Committee by December 31, 2000, 
detailing how it intends to apply resources, including funds 
received from the U.S. Enrichment Corporation under memoranda 
of agreement, the uranium enrichment D&D fund, and new 
appropriations, to assure that the depleted uranium tailings 
conversion project remains on track to meet the schedule 
provided in Public Law 105-204.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recognizes that this 
appropriation changes the programmatic responsibilities of the 
Offices of Defense Programs, Nuclear Energy, and Environmental 
Management. Nevertheless, the Committee expects each office to 
apply the Program Direction funds appropriated for the use of 
each office to carry out these purposes without need for 
additional shifting of funds between the offices. Should 
additional Program Direction funds be required, the Committee 
will entertain reprogramming requests from the Department to 
move programmatic funds to Program Direction to support 
personnel and other needs directly related to the successful 
execution of the affected programs.
    Domestic energy fuel cycle.--The Committee is very 
concerned that the front end of the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle, 
particularly the conversion and mining industries, are under 
severe market pressures and that elements could be lost in the 
very near term. Current market condition may well be related to 
the large amounts of excess material transferred to the United 
States Enrichment Corporation at the time of the privatization, 
to material brought into the United States under the Russian 
HEU agreement, and to liquidation of other inventories. The 
Committee directs the Secretary to work with the President and 
other Federal agencies to ensure that current laws with respect 
to the privatization of USEC and with respect to the 
implementation of the Russian HEU agreement and their impact on 
United States domestic capabilities are carried out. In 
addition, the Secretary is instructed to take timely measures 
to ensure that conversion capability is not lost in the United 
States. The Committee expects that any such measures will not 
interfere with the implementation of the Russian HEU agreement 
and the important national security goals it is accomplishing.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to undertake an 
evaluation and make specific recommendations on the various 
options to sustain a domestic uranium enrichment industry in 
the short and long term to be delivered to Congress no later 
than December 31, 2000. The Secretary's evaluation shall 
include recommendations for dealing with the Portsmouth 
facility and its role in maintaining a secure and sufficient 
domestic supply of enriched uranium. Further, this 
investigation should consider the technological viability and 
commercial feasibility of all proposed enrichment technologies 
including various centrifuge options, AVLIS and SILEX 
technologies or other emerging technology. The evaluation 
should also consider the role of the Federal Government in 
developing and supporting the implementation and regulation of 
these new technologies in order to secure a reliable and 
competitive source of domestic nuclear fuel. The Committee 
expects to be notified by the Department of its need for 
additional funding or decision to reprogram funding in order to 
carry out its priorities with regard to domestic enrichment 
industry.

                    environment, safety, and health

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $38,998,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      39,904,000
House allowance.........................................      35,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      38,321,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $38,321,000 for non-
defense environment, safety, and health which includes 
$18,998,000, the same amount as the current year, for program 
direction.

                       energy support activities

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $9,600,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       9,137,000
House allowance.........................................       8,600,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,450,000

    Technical information management.--The Committee 
recommendation for the technical information management program 
is $8,450,000.

                        environmental management

                              (nondefense)

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $332,350,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 282,812,000
House allowance.........................................     281,001,000
Committee recommendation................................     309,141,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    The Committee recommendation provides $309,141,000 for non-
defense environmental management, an increase of $23,140,000 
over the original budget request.
    The non-defense environmental management program is 
responsible for managing and addressing the environmental 
legacy resulting from nuclear energy and civilian energy 
research programs, primarily the Office of Science within the 
Department of Energy. Research and development activities of 
DOE and predecessor agencies generated waste and other 
contaminants which pose unique problems, including 
unprecedented volumes of contaminated soils, water and 
facilities. The funding requested and provided here supports 
the Department's goal of cleaning up as many of its 
contaminated sites as possible by 2006 in a safe and cost-
effective manner.
    Site completion.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$54,721,000 for site completion. The recommendation does not 
include funds requested for the removal of the Atlas tailings 
pile, which has not been authorized.
    Post 2006 completion.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $178,244,000, including $29,600,000 transferred from 
the Office of Nuclear Energy for uranium programs activities 
and an additional $9,000,000 to support depleted uranium 
conversion at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

      uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $249,247,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 294,588,000
House allowance.........................................     301,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     297,778,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    The Committee recommendation provides $297,778,000, 
including a $5,260,000 general reduction from the original 
budget request for the uranium enrichment and decontamination 
and decommissioning fund. 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.
    The Committee remains concerned by the growing backlog and 
gap between the amount of claims approved for payment and the 
funding requested by the Department to pay those claims. The 
problem is compounded by an estimated $130,000,000 of 
additional potential claims in future years. Since these 
payments go to reimburse operating uranium and thorium 
licensees for their costs of cleanup related to Federal 
activities, the Committee believes the Department should be 
doing more to ensure additional funds are available to make 
timely payments for approved claims.

                           nuclear waste fund

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $239,601,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     318,574,000
House allowance.........................................     213,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      59,175,000

    The Committee recommendation includes $351,175,000 for 
nuclear waste disposal, the same as the current year 
appropriation. Of that amount, $59,175,000 is derived from the 
nuclear waste fund, and $292,000,000 shall be available from 
the ``Defense nuclear waste disposal'' account.
    The proposed funding level as provided by the Committee is 
intended to allow the Department to meet the programmatic 
milestone associated with making a site recommendation in 
fiscal year 2001.
    The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the State of 
Nevada and $5,887,000 for affected units of local government in 
accordance with the statutory restrictions contained in the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

                                science

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $2,787,627,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\1\ 3,162,639,000
House allowance.........................................   2,830,915,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,870,112,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    Severely constrained spending limits for fiscal year 2001 
have forced the Committee into very difficult decisions 
regarding many otherwise outstanding programs and initiatives 
under the Office of Science. In order to adhere to the 
subcommittee's allocation, address critical ongoing research 
and development efforts, and balance congressional priorities 
with those of the administration, the Committee regrets that it 
is not able to recommend many of the substantial increases 
requested for programs, and in some cases, had to cut programs 
below current year levels. Furthermore, the Committee regrets 
that it cannot recommend funding for many worthwhile new 
initiatives.

                          high energy physics

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $707,890,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 709,272,000
House allowance.........................................     714,730,000
Committee recommendation................................     677,030,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    Due to severe budget restraints, the Committee 
recommendation provides $677,030,000 for high energy physics, a 
reduction of $30,860,000 from the current year appropriation.
    The Committee strongly supports the goals of the high 
energy physics program and reductions to the accounts are made 
without prejudice and as a result of the severe budget 
constraints within which it must provide funding. As such, the 
Committee directs the Department to allocate the resources 
provided in full consultation with the field and without 
prejudice to any site.

                            nuclear physics

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $352,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 365,069,000
House allowance.........................................     369,890,000
Committee recommendation................................     350,274,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    Due to severe budget restraints, the Committee 
recommendation for nuclear physics is $350,274,000, a reduction 
of $19,616,000 from the original request. The Committee 
recommendation does not provide $5,957,000 requested for the 
waste treatment program and directs the Department to achieve 
efficiencies in waste treatment by charging the costs to users 
where appropriate, or handling such costs within existing 
operational budgets. Due to budget constraints, funding for new 
research initiatives is reduced by $5,659,000, and funding for 
increased facility operations is reduced by $8,000,000.

                 biological and environmental research

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $441,500,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 438,454,000
House allowance.........................................     404,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     444,000,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    The Committee recommendation includes $444,000,000 for 
biological and environmental research including $2,500,000 for 
construction of the laboratory for Comparative and Functional 
Genomics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The recommendation 
for research is at the same level as the current year 
appropriation. The Committee recommendation does not provide 
$1,200,000 requested for waste management and directs the 
Department to achieve efficiencies in waste management by 
charging the costs to users where appropriate, or handling such 
costs within existing operational budgets. The recommendation 
does not include the proposed $9,507,000 increase to fund new 
initiatives to image the expression of genes in cells and does 
not support the development of new infrastructure and 
facilities to support this initiative. Due to severe budget 
constraints, the recommendation includes $4,735,000 requested 
for new initiatives in the Microbial Cell Project, a reduction 
of $5,000,000 from the request; and continues the free air 
carbon dioxide experiments at the current year level.
    Low dose effects program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $20,135,000, of which $11,682,000 is within biological 
and environmental research and $8,453,000 is within defense 
environmental restoration and waste management science and 
technology for the low dose effects program.
    Medical Applications.--The Committee recognizes the 
University of Missouri-Columbia's commitment to building a 
state-of-the-art cancer research and treatment program and 
provides $3,000,000 to expand the Federal investment in the 
University's nuclear medicine and cancer research capital 
program begun by the Committee last year, focusing on the 
enhancement of the campus' clinical cancer treatment and 
research facilities.

                         basic energy sciences

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $783,127,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\1\ 1,003,920,000
House allowance.........................................     791,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     914,582,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    The Committee recommendation includes $914,582,000 for 
basic energy sciences, an increase of $131,455,000 over the 
current year appropriation.
    Materials sciences.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$408,363,000 for materials sciences, a $3,363,000 increase over 
the current year appropriation and $47,748,000 below the budget 
request. The Committee recommendation includes the amount of 
the request, $9,815,000, for the Department's Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. The Committee 
recommendation does not provide $8,073,000 requested for waste 
management and directs the Department to achieve efficiencies 
in waste management by charging the costs to users where 
appropriate, or handling such costs within existing operational 
budgets. The Committee recommendation does not include 
$8,000,000 for the SPEAR 3 upgrade at the Stanford Synchrotron 
Radiation Laboratory. The Committee recommendation includes 
$203,596,000 for facility operations, the same amount as the 
current year and $23,675,000 below the request.
    Spallation neutron source.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $241,000,000 to continue the Spallation Neutron Source 
(SNS), including $221,900,000 for construction and $19,100,000 
for other activities related to the project. The amount 
represents a $121,900,000 increase over current year 
construction funding. The Committee recognizes the importance 
the SNS offers in advancing the frontiers of science and 
technology and the opportunities it will provide for future 
scientific and industrial research and development for the 
United States. The design and construction of this next-
generation, accelerator-based, neutron scattering facility, 
located at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is a 
collaborative effort involving six DOE national laboratories 
(Argonne, Brookhaven, Jefferson, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, 
and Oak Ridge). Due to the allocated budget constraints, the 
Committee is unable to provide the full budget request. The 
Committee endorses and supports the SNS as it enters the 
construction phase and hopes additional resources can be made 
available so as to limit any impact on the project's schedule 
and cost.
    Nanotechnology.--The Committee strongly supports the 
Department's role in the government-wide investment in 
nanotechnology and recognizes it may revolutionize the ability 
to craft highly specialized materials with unique properties. 
The Department has requested an increase of $36,140,000 over 
the current year appropriation for new initiatives in this 
areas. Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee 
recommendation provides only $20,140,000 for new initiatives in 
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology research, a 
reduction of $16,000,000 from the request, but a significant 
increase over last year. The reductions in nanotechnology 
research are taken from the following sub accounts: $8,000,000 
from materials sciences; $7,000,000 from chemical sciences; and 
$1,000,000 from engineering and geosciences.
    Energy biosciences.--Due to severe budget constraints, the 
Committee recommendation does not provide funding for the 
$2,440,000 in new research initiatives for microbial cell 
research, as funding is already provided under biological and 
environmental research.

                     other energy research programs

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $166,060,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     211,362,000
House allowance.........................................     171,930,000
Committee recommendation................................     174,900,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $174,900,000 for 
other energy research programs, an increase of $8,840,000 over 
the current year appropriation.
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $139,970,000 for advanced scientific 
computing research, an increase of $7,970,000 over the current 
year level of funding. The Department requested an increase of 
$50,611,000 over current year spending to support substantial 
new investments in scientific computing. The Committee 
recognizes the need for enhanced scientific computing 
capabilities within the Department's science programs, but is 
unable to support such a large increase given current budget 
constraints. The Committee recommendation does not provide 
$11,963,000 requested for the laboratory technology research 
program, and instead provides the entire recommended amount of 
$139,970,000 to mathematical, information, and computational 
sciences, an increase of $20,899,000 over current year funding, 
and directs the Department to accordingly initiate the most 
important new scientific computing initiatives.

                         fusion energy sciences

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $250,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 243,907,000
House allowance.........................................     255,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     227,270,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 
$227,270,000, a reduction of $22,730,000 from the current year 
appropriation. While, in the past, the Committee has supported 
increases above the level of the request for this program, 
severe budget constraints and shortfalls elsewhere in the 
Department's request necessitate the reduction at this time.

                      departmental administration

                                (gross)

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $205,581,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 214,421,000
House allowance.........................................     153,527,000
Committee recommendation................................     210,128,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        (miscellaneous revenues)

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $106,887,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     128,762,000
House allowance.........................................     111,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     128,762,000

                           inspector general

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $29,500,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      33,000,000
House allowance.........................................      31,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,988,000

    The Committee has provided $28,988,000 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 two separate categories--
National Nuclear Security Administration and Other Defense 
Related Activities.
    As a result of the enactment of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration Act, the Committee recommends a new 
account structure that includes the following separate 
appropriation accounts for the NNSA: weapons activities; 
defense nuclear nonproliferation; naval reactors; and Office of 
the Administrator.
    Under Other Defense Related Activities, the Committee has 
included separate appropriation accounts as follows: defense 
environmental restoration and waste management; defense 
facilities closure projects; defense environmental management 
privatization; other defense activities; and defense nuclear 
waste disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are 
provided below.

                National Nuclear Security Administration


                           Weapons Activities

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $4,427,052,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\1\ 4,639,225,000
House allowance.........................................   4,579,684,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,883,289,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    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 weapons activities 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. Future nuclear stewards 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. 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, all stockpile stewardship 
and management activities will achieve a new, closer linkage to 
each other under the NNSA.
    During the CTBT debate last year, there was strong 
testimony from committed and well respected public servants 
that the science-based stockpile stewardship program was 
underfunded and under stress. Thereafter, the Secretary of 
Energy ordered a comprehensive internal 30-Day review of 
stockpile stewardship. The Review generally concluded that the 
Stockpile Stewardship Program was ``on track'', but that 
``additional pressures such as increased security requirements, 
newly discovered stockpile issues, and resource limitations 
have collectively forced the program, overall, to be `wound too 
tight' with too little program flexibility for contingencies.'' 
The Committee is concerned that the program is not on schedule, 
given the current budget, to develop the tools, technologies 
and skill-base to refurbish our weapons and certify them for 
the stockpile. As such, the Committee recommendation provides 
substantial increases across many weapons programs.
    A successful Stockpile Stewardship Program requires at 
least four things: qualified and motivated nuclear-weapons 
experienced personnel, modern and well maintained facilities, 
the special experimental and computational facilities needed 
for stewardship in the absence of testing, and a sound 
management structure. The Committee remains very concerned that 
each year the nation continues to lose to retirement our most 
experienced weapons designers and engineers and our most highly 
skilled technicians. Recruiting and retaining the next 
generation of nuclear weapons stewards has been made more 
difficult by resource constraints, fewer opportunities for 
exploratory research, and diminished morale from a perceived 
lack of trust in the nuclear weapons scientists.
    Furthermore, DOE has failed to keep good modern facilities. 
The 30-Day Review said this has ``resulted in a huge bow wave 
of deferred improvements. For example, 70 percent of the 
facilities at Y-12, 80 percent of the facilities at the Kansas 
City Plant, 40 percent of the facilities at the Pantex Plant, 
and 40 percent of the facilities at the Savannah River tritium 
facilities are more than 40 years old.'' The Committee 
recommendation provides substantial increases for facility 
modernization.
    The Committee continues to be concerned that the Department 
has experienced tremendous difficulty in constructing its 
special experimental and computational facilities within budget 
and within schedule. The National Ignition Facility is only the 
most recent example. If the new NNSA is implemented consistent 
with the law, it will resolve a number of long-standing 
management problems within the Department's weapon activities.
    The Department has changed the manner in which it presents 
the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the stockpile 
stewardship program. In recent years, the program request was 
structured along two primary control levels--stockpile 
stewardship and stockpile management. For the upcoming year, 
the Department proposes a new budget and reporting structure 
based on the three elements of its integrated stockpile 
stewardship program: directed stockpile work, campaigns, and 
readiness in technical base and facilities. The Committee 
commends the Department for its more detailed and transparent 
budget structure and directs the Department to submit future 
requests that clearly identify the required funding for each 
program element under directed stockpile work, each campaign, 
and each program element under readiness in technical base and 
facilities.

                        directed stockpile work

    An appropriation of $906,603,000 is recommended for 
directed stockpile work of the NNSA, an increase of $87,427,000 
over the budget request.
    Directed stockpile work encompasses all activities that 
directly support specific weapons in the nuclear stockpile as 
directed by the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. These 
activities include current maintenance and day-to-day care of 
the stockpile as well as planned refurbishments as outlined by 
the stockpile life extension program (SLEP). This category also 
includes research, development and certification activities in 
direct support of each weapon system, and long-term future-
oriented research and development to solve either current or 
projected stockpile problems.
    Stockpile research and development.--The Committee 
recommends $268,300,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over the 
request, to support B61, W80, and W76 life extension 
development activities and to support additional sub-critical 
experiments at the Nevada test site. The recommendation 
includes an additional $6,000,000 for a cooperative research 
effort with the Department of Defense regarding defeat of hard 
and deeply buried targets.
    Stockpile maintenance.--The Committee recommends 
$282,994,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over the request, to 
support life extension operations on the W87, and development 
and engineering activities for the B61, W80, and W76.
    Stockpile evaluation.--The Committee recommends 
$171,710,000, an increase of $20,000,000 over the request, to 
eliminate the testing backlog, and for joint test equipment 
procurements.
    Production plants.--From the additional funds provided 
within directed stockpile maintenance and evaluation, 
$4,000,000 is intended for the Kansas City Plant; $8,000,000 is 
intended for the Pantex Plant; $8,000,000 is intended for the 
Y-12 Plant; and $3,000,000 is intended for the Savannah River 
Site.

                               campaigns

    An appropriation of $1,352,239,000 is recommended for the 
campaigns of the NNSA, an increase of $100,935,000 over the 
budget request.
    Campaigns encompasses focused scientific and technical 
efforts to develop and maintain critical capabilities needed to 
enable continued certification of the stockpile for the long 
term. The efforts are technically challenging, multi-function 
efforts that have definitive milestones, specific work plans, 
and specific end dates. The Committee notes, however, that 
campaigns must not become so focused on short-term milestones 
that long range research and maintenance of core capabilities 
are compromised.
    Primary certification.--The Committee recommends 
$51,400,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the request, to 
support sub-critical experiments and other activities necessary 
to support the required delivery date for a certified pit.
    Advanced radiography.--The Committee recommends 
$58,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the request, to 
support research, development and conceptual design for an 
advanced hydrodynamic test facility including further 
development and evaluation of proton radiography techniques.
    Enhanced surveillance.--The Committee recommends 
$106,651,000, an increase of $17,000,000 over the request, to 
support the accelerated deployment of test and diagnostic 
equipment to monitor and assess the health of the stockpile. 
From the additional funds provided, $3,000,000 is intended for 
the Kansas City plant; $7,000,000 is intended for the Pantex 
plant; $4,000,000 is intended for the Y-12 plant; and 
$1,000,000 for the Savannah River site.
    ICF ignition and high yield, Project 96-D-111 National 
Ignition Facility.--The Committee recommends $74,100,000, the 
amount of the budget request.
    The original fiscal year 2001 baseline estimate for the 
National Ignition Facility (NIF) included a total project cost 
of $1,198,900,000 and other related costs of $833,100,000, for 
total project related costs of $2,032,000,000. The Secretary of 
Energy has indicated that construction problems and delays will 
cause total project related costs to escalate to 
$3,257,500,000, an increase of $1,225,500,000.
    The Conference Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2000 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the 
Secretary to complete and certify a new cost and schedule 
baseline for NIF and submit that certification to the 
Committees by June 1, 2000. The Secretary indicated by letter 
dated June 1, 2000 a desire to continue with the project on an 
interim baseline, and requested additional time for final 
certification of the revised baseline. The interim baseline 
proposes increased construction funding of $135,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2001; $180,000,000 in fiscal year 2002; 
$179,100,000 in fiscal year 2003; $150,000,000 in fiscal year 
2004; $130,000,000 in fiscal year 2005; $110,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2006; $33,000,000 in fiscal year 2007; and $4,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2008. Furthermore, associated operational costs are 
projected to exceed the current baseline by a total of 
$304,400,000 during the construction period.
    The Secretary has stated that NIF remains a cornerstone 
requirement of the Stockpile Stewardship Program and should be 
completed despite an estimated $1,225,500,000 cost escalation. 
However, the Department previously acknowledged that current 
mission requirements were already potentially exceeding the 
available budget for the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP). 
The Department's 30-Day Review of the SSP noted that 
``additional pressures such as increased security requirements, 
newly discovered stockpile issues, and resource limitations 
have collectively forced the program, overall, to be `wound too 
tight' with too little program flexibility for contingencies.'' 
In light of this problem, the Committee questions whether NIF 
is essential to the Stockpile Stewardship program at a cost of 
$3,257,500,000. Furthermore, the Administration has failed to 
request an increase in the overall weapons activities budget or 
identify current activities that could be scaled back or 
eliminated in order to accommodate the increased cost of NIF 
over the next 8 years.
    The Department recently submitted a proposed reallocation 
of $135,000,000 within weapons activities to support a revised 
baseline for fiscal year 2001. Although the revised budget 
request would see the project through the immediate future, the 
Committee remains concerned that the Department has failed to 
develop a path forward for NIF that properly balances the 
scientific importance of NIF with the overall needs of the 
Stockpile Stewardship Program over the next 10 to 15 years. For 
example, the Committee believes the Department has failed to 
examine adequately options for NIF that involve completing a 
subset of the 192 beams as soon as possible (either 48 or 96), 
bringing the reduced NIF into operation, and performing the 
necessary scientific and technical tests to evaluate whether a 
192 beam NIF is cost effective or programmatically required. 
Furthermore, all options should be analyzed for the potential 
impacts and risks they impose on the rest of the weapons 
programs and the ability of the Department to complete the full 
suite of required facilities at other sites and laboratories 
around the complex. Until these important issues can be 
resolved to the satisfaction of the Committee, it will only 
recommend funding for the project as requested in the 
President's fiscal year 2001 budget submission.
    While the future of the NIF project is uncertain, it is 
essential that the Department continue to support and maintain 
the ongoing work at the Omega, ``Z'', and NIKE facilities and 
efforts in diagnostics, target fabrication and cryogenic target 
development. These other elements of the ICF program not only 
enable the goals of NIF, but have important roles in meeting 
the overall goals of Stockpile Stewardship. With significant 
delays in NIF, increased use of existing facilities and the 
continued development of the supporting activities are 
essential to the long term success of the program.
    ICF Ignition and High Yield, Petawatt Laser.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,500,000 within available funds for 
fiscal year 2001 to transfer the Petawatt Laser from Lawrence 
Livermore National Lab to the University of Nevada-Reno (UNR). 
The Committee directs the Department to facilitate an agreement 
between UNR and Lawrence Livermore National Lab to achieve 
operational status of the Petawatt Laser as soon as possible.
    Pit manufacturing readiness.--As part of the stockpile 
stewardship plan, the Department made a commitment to produce 
the hardware necessary to replace all parts of any warhead in 
the nuclear stockpile--evidenced by a requirement to 
manufacture a certifiable W88 pit by December 2001. The 
Committee is alarmed that resources previously appropriated to 
support pit production in fiscal year 2000 were redirected to 
other work within the program. The Committee believes the 
Department has failed to give the pit production program 
sufficient priority and management attention, resulting in the 
program now being behind schedule and over cost. The Committee 
directs the NNSA to provide a report to the Committees of 
jurisdiction in the House and the Senate by December 1, 2000, 
that includes the following: (1) a description of the program 
requirements for production of the W88 pit; (2) a proposed 
production schedule that is consistent with the programmatic 
needs of the Department of Defense; (3) a detailed description 
of the budget required to meet production on the proposed 
schedule; (4) a description of the number and kinds of non-
nuclear tests and computations necessary for certification of 
the W88 pit; (5) a proposed certification schedule that is 
consistent with the programmatic needs of the Department of 
Defense; and, (6) a detailed description of the budget required 
to meet certification on the proposed schedule. The report 
should contain specific dates and milestones against which 
progress shall be measured.
    The Committee recommendation provides $123,038,000 for pit 
manufacturing readiness, an increase of $15,000,000 over the 
budget request. The Committee intends this level of funding to 
be sufficient to allow the NNSA to complete pit production on a 
revised schedule that still meets commitments to the Department 
of Defense. The Committee has also provided an additional 
$10,000,000 to support the primary certification campaign, as 
described earlier in the report. If the NNSA Administrator 
believes, after completing the above described review and 
report, that the $25,000,000 in funding above the current 
budget request is not sufficient to meet required production 
and certification schedules, the Committee strongly urges the 
submission of a supplemental appropriations request for fiscal 
year 2001.
    Secondary readiness.--The Committee recommends $25,000,000, 
an increase of $10,000,000 over the request, to address 
facility planning, technology, critical skills, and 
capabilities required for full-scale secondary production at 
the Y-12 Plant, Tennessee.
    Tritium readiness.--The Committee recommends a total of 
$133,000,000, a decrease of $19,000,000 from the request, 
including $58,000,000 for support of the commercial light water 
reactor program and $75,000,000 for construction. The Committee 
recommendation does not include within this campaign 
$19,000,000 requested to support accelerator production of 
tritium as a back-up technology. That funding is provided under 
advanced accelerator applications within Other Defense 
Activities.
    Cooperative agreements.--The Committee recognizes that 
cooperative agreements with university systems are important 
resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile 
stewardship. The Committee notes the current cooperative 
research and development agreement with the University of 
Nevada system will expire on March 31, 2001 and urges the 
Department to renew the agreement for another 2-year period at 
a level consistent with prior year funding.

               readiness in technical base and facilities

    An appropriation of $2,263,947,000 is recommended for 
readiness in technical base and facilities, an increase of 
$171,289,000 over the original budget request. Readiness in 
technical base and facilities encompasses efforts to provide 
for the physical infrastructure and operational readiness 
required to conduct the directed stockpile work and campaign 
activities at the laboratories, the test site and the 
production plants.
    Operations of facilities.--The Committee recommends 
$1,449,721,000, an increase of $136,289,000 above the budget 
request. The recommendation includes an additional $10,000,000 
for operation of pulsed power facilities, and an additional 
$20,000,000 for microsystems and microelectronics activities in 
support of planned stockpile refurbishments at Sandia National 
Laboratories. The recommendation includes an additional 
$7,000,000 for planning for a replacement of the CMR facility 
at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and an additional 
$43,000,000 for replacement of critical equipment and 
infrastructure repairs and upgrades throughout the weapons 
production complex in the following amounts: $20,000,000 at the 
Kansas City Plant, Missouri; $13,000,000 at the Pantex Plant, 
Texas; $8,000,000 at the Y-12 Plant, Tennessee; and $2,000,000 
at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina.
    The Committee recommendation includes $44,205,000 
associated with the nuclear emergency search team and 
$12,084,000 associated with the accident response group. The 
administration's budget requested funding for these items under 
the Office of Security and Emergency Operations. The Committee 
recommendation provides the requested funding within readiness 
in technical base and facilities, under the responsibility of 
the NNSA, as required by Public Law 106-65.
    Material recycle and recovery.--The Committee recommends 
$37,018,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the request, to 
maintain restart schedules for hydrogen fluoride and wet 
chemistry operations at the Y-12 Plant, Tennessee.
    Uranium-233.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$15,000,000 to process uranium-233 stored in building 3019 in 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to obtain thorium-229 needed for cancer 
treatment and to down-blend uranium-233 with uranium-238. By 
blending the high-assay uranium-233 with uranium-238, the NNSA 
will ensure that the assay of the resultant depleted uranium 
will be below safety and safeguard limits. In order to meet the 
quality, cost, and schedule requirements with the commercial 
use of the extremely short-lived actinium-225, the Committee 
recommends that the Department utilize a well qualified 
contractor for this project. In order for the cancer treatment 
project to receive the required private financing in a timely 
manner, the NNSA shall transition the responsibility and 
control of the nuclear material processing and the medical 
isotope extraction to a commercial contractor to achieve the 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required Good Manufacturers 
Practice (GMP) material availability by April 2001. This 
material required on April 2001 must be produced by the long-
term production process to demonstrate FDA reliability and 
quality.
    Special Projects.--The Committee recommends $53,297,000, an 
increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation provides $3,000,000 for the final year of 
funding for the American Textiles Partnership (AMTEX), and 
$2,000,000 to support a program in partnership with university 
systems to meet the needs of the NNSA and address the concerns 
of the Chiles Commission by forming a transitional pipeline of 
qualified students into the defense programs of the NNSA. The 
Committee recommendation fully funds the budget request for 
educational support activities.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $154,085,000, an increase of $15,469,000, for 
construction projects under Readiness in Technical Base and 
Facilities.
    Project 01-D-103 Preliminary project design and 
engineering, various locations.--The Committee recommends 
$29,500,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the request. 
Within the amount provided, $20,000,000 shall be used to 
complete Title I and II design and provide supporting 
infrastructure upgrades to the Microsystems and Engineering 
Sciences Applications facility, Sandia National Laboratories.
    The Committee is pleased the Department established the 
Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) within 
the Office of Chief Financial Officer. With the establishment 
of this office, the Committee expects the Department to 
strengthen its capabilities in the area of construction 
management oversight. The Committee continues to support the 
use of external independent reviews (EIRs) for all new line 
item capital projects, conducted by non-proponent, recognized 
professional project management firms and managed by OECM. EIRs 
should be conducted prior to construction and after 
establishing the final performance baseline, and shall include 
an independent cost estimate, and required corrective action 
plans and updates.
    The Committee further notes the Department's proposed 
request for Project Engineering and Design for certain of its 
projects in the Defense area for fiscal year 2001, and that the 
purpose is to achieve a 30-35 percent level of engineering 
design for new construction projects, prior to providing data 
to the Congress in support of construction funding. Such an 
advanced design should provide a more mature technical and cost 
baseline, ensuring greater likelihood of achieving project cost 
and schedule adherence. Therefore, the requirement to restrict 
the availability of funding for new project until an EIR has 
been reviewed by the Committee can be lifted. OECM is to work 
with the Committee to establish guidelines to ensure final 
performance baselines are developed for each new project, that 
EIRs are undertaken to validate these baselines, and procedures 
are developed which make the availability of funding contingent 
upon successful review and approval by OECM.
    Technology transfer and industrial partnerships.--The 
Committee recognizes that partnerships with industry may enable 
the weapons complex to accomplish its missions more 
efficiently. Such partnerships can provide access to new 
technologies, new processes, or new business procedures that 
improve the NNSA's mission capabilities. Since these 
partnerships should support mission needs, they should be 
accomplished within funds already designated for mission-
related work by the weapons laboratories and plants. The 
Committee notes that the budget request includes $14,000,000 in 
technology partnership funding and recommends that at least 
$30,000,000 of the work supported by the NNSA be accomplished 
through such partnerships. An annual report to the relevant 
committees of Congress on the utilization of industrial 
partnerships for these purposes shall be provided.
    Technology Infrastructure.--The Committee notes that the 
Senate National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 
approved a 3-year pilot program for national laboratories to 
conduct a Technology Infrastructure Pilot Program. The 
Committee recommends up to $3,000,000 from within available 
funds, be utilized by the National Nuclear Security 
Administration to initiate a pilot program to improve the 
mission capabilities of its laboratories through development of 
technology clusters in the regions near these facilities.
    Defense directed energy activities.--The Committee 
recognizes that the High Energy Laser Master Plan approved by 
the Department of Defense (DOD) in March 2000, acknowledges the 
vital role that the NNSA could play in meeting the 
technological needs of the DOD in directed energy weapons 
systems. The Committee strongly recommends that the NNSA work 
to complete a comprehensive agreement with the DOD to ensure 
that the expertise and technologies already existent at the 
national laboratories are leveraged for these purposes.
    Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee 
recommendation provides the full amount of the budget request, 
including $55,675,000 for collaborations with university 
partnerships, alliances, institutes, and fellowships. The 
Committee understands that the Department's budget request 
reassigned items to this category and reduced the operations 
category accordingly, but did not clearly identify this change 
in its submission to Congress. This error caused confusion 
regarding the actual level of increase, which is 6.7 percent 
above last year.

                           program direction

    An appropriation of $224,071,000 is recommended for program 
direction activities. This is the same as the original budget 
request.
    Program Direction provides funds for all Federal personnel-
related expenses for Defense Programs offices at the NNSA 
headquarters and the field operations offices. It also provides 
technical support throughout the Defense Programs complex in 
the areas of environment, safety and health; safeguards and 
security; NEPA compliance, and compliance with Federal and 
State laws, and recommendations of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $729,100,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 865,590,000
House allowance.........................................     861,477,000
Committee recommendation................................     908,967,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    The Committee recommendation provides $908,967,000, an 
increase of $2,932,000 over the original budget request.
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities of the NNSA are 
focused towards reducing the serious global danger of weapons 
of mass destruction (WMD). The NNSA utilizes the highly 
specialized scientific, technical, analytical, and operational 
capabilities of the NNSA and its national laboratories as well 
as other Department of Energy laboratories. Its mission is to 
prevent the spread of WMD materials, technology and expertise; 
detect the proliferation of WMD worldwide; reverse the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities; dispose of 
surplus materials in accordance with terms set forth in 
agreements between the United States and Russia; and store 
surplus fissile materials in a safe manner pending disposition. 
The Committee continues to strongly support these important 
national security programs.
    Nonproliferation and verification research and 
development.--The Committee recommends $245,990,000, an 
increase of $20,000,000 over the original budget request. The 
funding level recommended by the Committee provides significant 
increases over the current year level for the NNSA to deliver 
enhanced ground-based and space-based monitoring equipment to 
support planned upgrades to existing treaty monitoring systems; 
to deploy new detection technologies; and to meet urgent needs 
for technology to respond to the threat of chem/bioterrorism 
against civilians.
    The Nonproliferation and Verification, Research and 
Development program is essential for stable long-term research 
and the development of unique science and technology 
competencies needed for the increasing demands of arms control, 
nonproliferation, domestic nuclear safeguards and security, 
energy security, and emergency management.
    The Committee has received the report from the 
Nonproliferation and National Security Advisory Committee 
reviewing the Nonproliferation and Verification Research and 
Development Program. The Committee is pleased to see the 
external peer review advisory committee found that the program 
``addresses U.S. nonproliferation and national security 
objectives in a manner consistent with Executive and 
Congressional mandates,'' and that the ``technical quality of 
the work in each program area is high.'' The advisory committee 
highlighted and the Committee recognizes that the majority of 
the program is primarily longer-term, developmental projects 
with a very small research component. The Committee notes that 
while not entirely competitively selected, over 20 percent of 
program funds go to universities and industry primarily through 
the national laboratories. The Committee believes that this is 
an excellent way to ensure that work conducted at the national 
laboratories and within universities and industry are closely 
coupled and focused on meeting operational needs. Based on the 
advisory committee's review, the developmental nature of the 
program, and the percentage of program funds provided to 
universities and industry, the Committee believes the 
Department is satisfying the intent of the language in last 
year's conference report.
    Project 00-D-192 Nonproliferation and international 
security center (NISC), Los Alamos National Laboratory.--The 
Committee recommends $17,000,000 to accelerate construction and 
completion of the facility.
    Arms Control.--The Committee recommends $138,014,000 for 
arms control and nonproliferation, an increase of $15,000,000 
over the original budget request.
    The Arms Control and Nonproliferation program is the focal 
point within the Department of Energy which support the U.S. 
arms control and nonproliferation policies, and provides 
leadership and representation within the Department in the 
international arms control and nonproliferation community. The 
goal is to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation by 
integrating the Department's assets and efforts, including 
those of the national laboratories and contractors, by 
providing technical support to the U.S. Government's foreign 
policy and national security objectives.
    The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000 for the 
nuclear cities initiative, an increase of $12,500,000 over the 
budget request. The Committee remains concerned that progress 
in restructuring of the Russian nuclear weapons complex is not 
proceeding at a pace commensurate with the risks that this 
complex presents to the United States. It is in our nation's 
interest to take full advantage of instant opportunities to 
achieve restructuring and downsizing of the Russian complex in 
a manner that lessens the risk that Russian personnel 
possessing critical skills will be recruited to other countries 
interested in developing or improving their weapons programs. 
The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000 for 
restructuring and commercialization efforts in the nuclear 
cities in fiscal year 2001, and directs the NNSA to make the 
availability of the funds provided in excess to the request 
contingent on the development of a Russian plan outlining 
specific, transparent and verifiable milestones that provide 
the United States confidence that the downsizing and 
restructuring is proceeding as planned. The Committee 
recognizes that the end result of the restructuring should be a 
self-sustaining, significantly smaller, complex and to that end 
encourages development of commercial ventures that contribute 
to this restructuring process. The Committee also recognizes 
that contract research may facilitate progress towards the 
final makeup of the complex, but recommends that contract 
research should comprise no more than one-quarter of the 
appropriated funds for U.S. assistance in Russia's efforts to 
restructure that complex. In addition, the Committee recognizes 
the importance of educational programs in non-proliferation 
studies that can contribute to managing conversion of weapons 
activities through approaches that minimize any risks of 
proliferation of materials or expertise.
    The recommendation provides $24,500,000 for the Initiative 
for Proliferation Prevention, an increase of $2,000,000 over 
the request. These programs contribute to the international 
non-proliferation effort by engaging highly qualified and 
knowledgeable scientists, engineers, and technicians from 
Russia and the former states of the Soviet Union in cooperative 
commercial and other high technology non-military activities.
    The recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the Russian 
Reactor Spent Fuel Acceptance Program.
    Long-term nonproliferation program for Russia.--Independent 
of the budget request for arms control, the Department 
requested funding for a new series of initiatives referred to 
collectively as the long-term nonproliferation program for 
Russia. The initiative proposes to achieve a 20-year moratorium 
on accumulation of separated plutonium from civil power 
reactors by offering incentives, including a program for the 
joint development of proliferation resistant reactor 
technologies, the construction of a dry spent fuel storage 
facility, and the exploration of permanent disposition options 
for spent nuclear fuel and high level waste. Implementation of 
the program is dependent on the Russians' adherence to a 
commitment not to engage in nuclear cooperation with Iran 
beyond the Bushehr Unit 1 project. The Committee commends the 
administration on its efforts in this important area of 
nonproliferation and endorses the overall concept. However, the 
Committee remains concerned that the United States and Russia 
have not completed an agreement to support the initiative, and 
Russia has not moved to resolve issues regarding nuclear 
cooperation with Iran. Pending resolution of these concerns, 
the Committee recommendation does not provide at this time the 
$70,000,000 requested for nonproliferation and the nuclear fuel 
cycle.
    The long-term nonproliferation program for Russia also 
included additional funds for ongoing efforts in the area of 
materials protection, control and accounting; and the 
accelerated closure of serial production facilities within 
Russian nuclear cities. The Committee supports the additional 
funding for these ongoing programs and has considered them in 
conjunction with the regular budget requests.
    International materials protection, control, and 
accounting.--The recommendation provides $173,856,000 for 
international material protection, control, and accounting 
[MPC&A] activities, an increase of $24,000,000 over the 
original budget request. The Committee continues to consider 
these activities extremely important to reducing the threat 
created by the breakup of the former Soviet Union. The 
increased funding will allow for additional material 
consolidation and control work, an expanded program of MPC&A at 
several Russian Navy sites, and expanded MPC&A efforts within 
defense-related and important civilian and regulatory sites in 
Russia. The Committee continues to believe that these 
activities are critical elements of the United States non-
proliferation efforts.
    HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) Transparency 
Implementation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$15,190,000, the amount of the budget request for the HEU 
Transparency Implementation program of the Department of 
Energy. This program is responsible for ensuring that the non-
proliferation aspects of the February 1993 agreement between 
the United States and the Russian Federation are met. This 
Agreement covers the purchase over 20 years of low enriched 
uranium [LEU] derived from at least 500 metric tons of HEU 
removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under the 
Agreement, conversion of the HEU components into LEU is 
performed in Russian facilities. The purpose of this program is 
to put into place those measures agreed to by both sides, that 
permit the United States to have confidence that the Russian 
side is abiding by the Agreement.
    International Nuclear Safety.--The Committee recommendation 
is $20,000,000, the full budget request for the International 
Nuclear Safety program.
    The purpose of the International Nuclear Safety program is 
to improve nuclear power plant safety by transferring U.S. 
technology, equipment, methods, know-how and experience in the 
areas of training and simulators, operating and emergency 
procedures , safety maintenance, safety system upgrades, fire 
safety, reactor safety analysis to host country through joint 
agreements with the U.S. Efforts a primarily focused in Russia 
and the States of the Former Soviet Union.
    The Committee supports DOE's efforts to use the experience 
and expertise of scientists of the former Soviet Union to 
address waste management and environmental remediation 
challenges within the DOE complex. The International Centers 
for Environmental Safety have demonstrated the potential for 
realizing considerable cost savings through the selected use of 
Russian expertise for that purpose.
    Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee recommends 
$251,367,000 for fissile materials disposition, an increase of 
$27,932,000 over the budget request. This 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.
    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 or 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 commends 
the administration for its substantial progress in completing 
the United States/Russian plutonium disposition agreement.
    The Committee recommendation includes $135,517,000 for U.S. 
surplus materials disposition, the same as the original budget 
request. The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of 
$10,000,000 in projected savings from the NNSA's decision to 
not pursue production of the lead test assemblies for MOX fuel 
at the TA-55 facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The 
Committee strongly urges the NNSA not to close out the LTA 
operation at TA-55 until it has a workable commitment for LTA 
production elsewhere. The Committee recommendation includes the 
transfer of $37,932,000 associated with the highly enriched 
uranium blend down project.
    The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to 
support the joint United States-Russian program to develop an 
advanced reactor to consume large quantities of excess weapons 
plutonium. The primary purpose of the joint United States-
Russian program for the development of an advanced reactor is 
the design and eventual construction of a demonstration reactor 
in Russia for the purpose of surplus weapons plutonium 
disposition. However, the United States must take full 
advantage of the development of this attractive technology for 
a possible next generation nuclear power reactor for United 
States and foreign markets. Therefore, the Committee directs 
the Department to explore opportunities to develop and exploit 
this technology for commercial purposes. The Office of Nuclear 
Energy should take the lead in planning and implementation of 
initiatives to support this effort.
    Preliminary studies, funded under the Department's 
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program that involved 
the Kurchatov Institute and Brookhaven National Laboratory, 
explored the utilization of weapons-grade plutonium in thorium-
based fuel assemblies in light water reactors. These studies 
suggest that plutonium may be consumed at rates well in excess 
of other reactor designs and with greatly reduced impacts on 
existing reactor safety and control systems. The Committee 
encourages the Department to investigate this technology, 
evaluate its feasibility as an additional alternative for the 
disposition of weapons-surplus plutonium in light water reactor 
designs that are utilized in significant numbers around the 
world, and submit a report to the Committee no later than March 
1, 2001.

                           program direction

    The Committee recommendation includes $41,550,000 for 
program direction within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, the 
amount of the budget request.

                             Naval Reactors

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $677,600,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 673,083,000
House allowance.........................................     677,600,000
Committee recommendation................................     694,600,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    The Naval Reactors Program within the NNSA 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 $694,600,000, an increase of 
$17,000,000 over the budget request.
    The Committee has provided an additional $17,000,000 to 
optimize the program to shutdown prototype reactors and 
complete all major inactivation work by fiscal year 2002. The 
Committee supports this effort and urges the Department to 
review the need for additional funding in future years, and to 
take appropriate action to request additional resources as may 
be needed in future budgets.

                      Office of the Administrator

Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $10,000,000

    The Committee has included $10,000,000 to cover the 
expenses of the Office of the Administrator of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Legislation to create 
the NNSA was only recently enacted, and the fiscal year 2001 
budget request did not contain necessary funding for the 
Administrator to carry out his management and oversight 
responsibilities. In an effort to ensure appropriate and 
effective oversight of the programs and activities under the 
jurisdiction of the Administrator, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. The 
Committee expects to be fully and currently informed of the 
details of the makeup of the Office of the Administrator. 
Further, the Committee expects that future budget request for 
the Office of the Administrator will be developed by the 
Administrator.

                        recommendation summaries

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

                    OTHER DEFENSE RELATED ACTIVITIES


         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $4,467,308,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\1\ 4,562,057,000
House allowance.........................................   4,522,707,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,635,763,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,635,763,000 
for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
programs for fiscal year 2001. This is $84,236,000 over the 
budget request.
    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.
    Fiscal year 1999 budget request was the first fiscal year 
that the environmental management program structure was 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 2001 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 relatively 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 $939,519,000 is recommended for site 
and project completion activities, including $897,975,000 for 
operation and maintenance, and $41,544,000 for construction.
    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.
    The Committee recommendation provides an additional 
$10,000,000 to accelerate the stabilization of nuclear 
materials under the 94-1 program at the Savannah River Site, 
including expediting rack construction and testing for 
Americium/Curium stabilization project, development of safety 
documentation and other pre-operational activities to support 
planned stabilization campaign, and continued operation of the 
process for plutonium residues. The Committee recommendation 
also reflects the transfer of $37,932,000 associated with the 
highly enriched uranium blend down project to the fissile 
materials disposition program within defense nuclear 
nonproliferation, and a transfer of $22,500,000 to the science 
and technology sub-account for technology validation and 
verification activities.
    The Committee urges the Department to consider a proposal, 
if submitted, by the University of South Carolina's Center for 
Water Research and Policy that would extend their current 
partnership within the Savannah River Basin area.
    Additional funding of $19,000,000 is provided for ongoing 
environmental management activities and to maintain compliance 
with relevant clean-up agreements at Hanford as follows: 
$12,000,000 is provided for the K-basin spent nuclear fuel 
project and should be used to accelerate activities associated 
with disposal of the residual sludge that will remain after 
removal and packaging of the spent fuel; and $7,000,000 is 
provided to accelerate stabilization activities at the 
plutonium finishing plant to support Defense Nuclear Facility 
Safety Board milestone activities and reduce safety risks 
associated with storing large quantities of plutonium-bearing 
materials.

                          Post-2006 Completion

    The Committee recommendation for Post-2006 completion 
activities is $3,167,725,000, which includes $2,647,525,000 in 
operating expenses, a $420,000,000 contribution to the UED&D 
fund and $99,732,000 for construction.
    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 $10,000,000 for environmental restoration work at 
the Hanford Site to accommodate increased work, maintain the 
compliance schedule, and continue the successful program to 
cocoon the old production reactors. Within the $10,000,000 
additional funds provided for Environmental Restoration at 
Hanford, the Committee directs that up to $950,000 in hazard 
mitigation funds be available to protect the health and safety 
of workers and to ensure safe, controlled public access to the 
105 B Reactor to preserve its status as a historic building 
listed on the National Register.
    A recent audit by the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Inspector General concludes that Hanford is behind schedule on 
several Tri-Party Agreement Milestones and this is increasing 
the risk of major contamination. The Committee recommendation 
provides an additional $25,000,000 to the Hanford tank program 
to achieve compliance with the Tri-Party Agreement. This money 
should be used to pump high-level radioactive waste into 
double-shell tanks, protect the vadose zone, and ensure the 
tank waste is treated and readied in a timely manner for 
ultimate vitrification.
    The Committee urges the Department to carry out the intent 
of the legislation that created the separate Office of River 
Protection by according to the Office and its manager the 
autonomy and authorities needed to manage all aspects of the 
tank waste cleanup effort at Hanford in an efficient and 
streamlined manner. Specifically, the Office should have line 
management responsibility for contracting, nuclear safety, 
financial, program management, and other authority necessary to 
manage the lank waste cleanup effort.
    The Committee recommendation includes $23,800,000 
transferred from the Office of Nuclear Energy for uranium 
programs activities.
    The Committee notes that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, 
as the world's only operating geological repository, has 
elements that are analogous to all future repositories. While 
WIPP does not store weapons grade materials, it is in a unique 
position to serve as a test bed for development and 
demonstration of transparency techniques and technologies for 
repositories that can assist in implementing future arms-
reduction processes and reduce concerns over proliferation 
vulnerabilities associated with storage or disposal of weapons-
grade materials in future repositories. The Committee 
recommends $3,200,000 from within available funds for a 
transparency demonstration projects at WIPP under the direction 
of the Carlsbad Office to begin implementation of the plan for 
this effort that was required by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000.

                         Science and Technology

    An appropriation of $252,948,000 is recommended for science 
and technology activities related to the environmental waste 
cleanup program, an increase of $56,400,000 over the original 
budget request.
    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 several billion dollars.
    Of the amounts recommended, the Committee has included an 
increase of $10,000,000 for the environmental management 
science program; an increase of $8,000,000 for accelerated site 
technology deployment; and an additional $5,500,000 for the 
long term environmental stewardship program at the Idaho 
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), to 
address technology issues related to site monitoring and 
maintenance, environmental monitoring, application and 
enforcement of institutional controls, and information 
management. The Committee recommendation supports the 
University Research Program in Robotics at an amount of 
$4,350,000; and includes an additional $400,000 to begin 
conceptual design of the Subsurface Geosciences Laboratory at 
INEEL and expects the Department to include a request for final 
design activities with its fiscal year 2002 budget request. The 
Committee recommendation also reflects the transfer of 
$22,500,000 from the ``Site/project completion'' sub-account to 
the ``Science and technology'' sub-account, and additional 
funding of $6,500,000 for the low dose radiation effects 
program.
    The Committee understands that the Department's 
Environmental Management Deactivation and Decommissioning 
mortgage is at least $4,000,000,000 and that the D&D focus area 
has helped deploy a number of new technologies that have been 
cost effective in reducing this D&D mortgage, and thereby 
reducing risks to site workers, the public and the environment. 
The Committee recommendation provides $20,372,000 for the D&D 
focus area, an increase of $2,000,000 over the request.
    The Committee recommends that the current cooperative 
agreement with the Waste-management Education and Research 
Consortium be extended for a 5 year period at a level of 
$2,500,000 annually to continue their support for environmental 
education and technology development.
    The Committee recognizes the work carried out by the 
Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory [DIAL] 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. The 
Committee recommendation supports DIAL at $6,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2001, an increase of $1,500,000 over the budget request.
    Upon successful completion of supplemental testing to which 
the Department has committed funding, the Department is 
directed to use $4,000,000 of available funds to continue its 
evaluation, development and demonstration of the Advanced 
Vitrification System and its application to waste cleanup at 
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 
The supplemental testing is to be completed by March 1, 2001, 
and a report submitted to the Congress.

                           Program Direction

    The Committee recommendation for program direction totals 
$359,888,000, which is the same as the budget request.
    Program direction provides the overall direction and 
administrative support for the environmental management 
programs of the Department of Energy.

                   Defense Facility Closure Projects

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $1,060,447,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\1\ 1,082,714,000
House allowance.........................................   1,082,297,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,082,297,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,082,297,000 
for the site closure program.
    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.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $188,282,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 514,884,000
House allowance.........................................     259,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     324,000,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.

    An appropriation of $324,000,000 is recommended for the 
environmental management privatization initiative. The 
Committee recommendation provides $259,000,000 for the Tank 
Waste Remediation System (TWRS) at Hanford, Washington; 
$25,092,000 for Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage in Idaho; 
$65,000,000 for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Facility; 
and presumes the use of $25,092,000 in prior year balances.
    The Department of Energy announced in May its decision to 
terminate the privatization contract with BNFL for construction 
and operation of the TWRS at Hanford. As a result of the 
significant change in circumstances, the Department has 
estimated a revised requirement of $370,000,000 in budget 
authority for continuation of the TWRS project during fiscal 
year 2001, composed of $259,000,000 in new appropriations and 
the use of $111,000,000 appropriated to the project in previous 
years. The Committee recognizes the tremendous importance of 
this project to the total clean-up effort at Hanford, and 
understands that the recommended funding will allow the 
Department to maintain its ability to meet the Tri-Party 
Agreement milestone for facility hot start by December 2007 and 
other commitment dates within the proposed consent decree with 
the State of Washington.

                        recommendation summaries

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

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $309,199,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... \1\ 575,617,000
House allowance.........................................     592,235,000
Committee recommendation................................     579,463,000

\1\ Reflects budget amendment contained in H. Doc. 106-251 for 
Safeguards and Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Intelligence

    The Committee recommendation totals $38,059,000, an 
increase of $2,000,000 over the current year appropriation.
    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 NNSA, 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.

                   security and emergency operations

    The Committee recommendation for security and emergency 
operations is $280,087,000, an increase of $156,987,000 over 
the current year appropriation.
    The Department submitted a fiscal year 2001 budget 
amendment which consolidates DOE-wide safeguards and security 
expenditures within the Office of Security and Emergency 
Operations. The effect of the amendment would be to impose 
centralized Department-wide management of security costs and 
operations, including the security of nuclear weapons, nuclear 
secrets, nuclear materials and nuclear facilities. The 
amendment is inconsistent with section 3212(b)(6) of Public Law 
106-65, which gives the Administrator of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration authority over, and responsibility for, 
safeguards and security for all programs and activities of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. As such, the 
Committee has not considered the budget amendment.
    Nuclear Safeguards.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$120,409,000 for nuclear safeguards, an increase of $3,157,000 
from the current year appropriation. The Committee 
recommendation provides $9,000,000 for critical infrastructure 
protection, an increase of $6,900,000 over the current year 
appropriation.
    Security Investigations.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $33,000,000, the amount of the budget request. The 
amount provided includes an off-set of $20,000,000 from program 
organizations that will be responsible for funding additional 
security investigation requirements.
    Emergency Management.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $37,311,000 for emergency management. The amount 
provided reflects the transfer of $44,205,000 associated with 
the nuclear emergency search team and $12,084,000 associated 
with the accident response group to the NNSA, as required by 
Public Law 106-65. The Committee recommendation otherwise 
provides the amount of the budget request.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$89,367,000 for program direction, the amount of the budget 
request.

            independent oversight and performance assurance

    The Committee recommendation provides $14,937,000 for 
independent oversight and performance assurance, the amount of 
the budget request.
    The independent oversight and performance assurance program 
provides independent evaluation and oversight of safeguards, 
security, emergency management and cyber security for the 
Department at the Secretary's direction.

                          Counterintelligence

    An appropriation of $45,200,000 is provided for the 
counterintelligence activities of the Department of Energy. 
This is an increase of $6,000,000 over the current years 
appropriation.
    The Counterintelligence program has the mission of 
enhancing the protection of sensitive technologies, 
information, and expertise against foreign intelligence, 
industrial intelligence, and terrorist attempts to acquire 
nuclear weapons information or advanced technologies from the 
National Laboratories.

                   Advanced accelerator applications

    The Committee recommendation includes $60,000,000 to 
support advanced accelerator applications. That amount includes 
$5,000,000 for research and development of technologies for 
economic and environmentally sound refinement of spent nuclear 
fuel at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
    The Committee is encouraged by the possibilities for 
leveraging the work accomplished thus far in the accelerator 
production of tritium (APT) program to accomplish a wide range 
of science and technology missions. Importantly, advanced, 
high-energy accelerators could be central to a future strategy 
to transmute spent nuclear fuel into less toxic, shorter-lived 
materials, thereby ensuring greater public acceptance of a 
nuclear waste repository.
    In order to pursue these important technology opportunities 
while still completing necessary design work for a facility 
capable of producing tritium to meet possible future defense 
requirements, the Committee directs the Department to establish 
an Office of Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA) within the 
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The mission 
of the AAA program shall include conducting scientific, 
engineering research, development and demonstrations on: (1) 
accelerator production of tritium as a back-up technology; (2) 
transmutation of spent nuclear fuel and waste; (3) material 
science; and (4) other advanced accelerator applications. The 
Committee further directs that the Department transfer the APT 
program from the Office of Defense Programs within the NNSA to 
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology for 
integration into the AAA office. AAA should assure that any 
accelerator developed by the program will be capable of 
producing tritium for the nation's nuclear stockpile, based on 
requirements identified by the Office of Defense Programs. The 
Committee encourages the participation of international 
collaborators, industrial partners, and support for new 
graduate engineering and science students and professors at 
U.S. universities.
    The Committee further directs the Department to provide the 
Committee with a plan by March 1, 2001, that details how the 
mission of the AAA program will be accomplished and the annual 
level of funding required to support these missions. The 
Department shall thereafter submit to Congress an annual report 
of the progress in each of its mission areas.

                     environment, safety and health

    The Committee recommendation provided $133,680,000 for 
Environmental, Safety and Health activities including 
$22,604,000 for program direction. The mission of the Office of 
Environmental, Safety and Health is to protect the health and 
safety of Department of Energy workers, the public, and the 
environment and is to be the Department's independent advocate 
for safety, health and the environment.
    The Committee notes that the effective management, storage, 
retrieval, and integration of environmental, scientific and 
medical records is important to ensuring public health and 
safety throughout the Department of Energy complex. Current 
Department record keeping is managed at local offices using a 
variety of methods and formats. Furthermore, current approaches 
to digitization contain overlapping functions, are not 
standardized, and may result in records with a very short 
useful life. Integrated management of these records would 
ensure data preservation and access, and may result in 
substantial savings through reduced information technology 
operations and maintenance costs. Therefore, the Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to establish a program at 
the University of Nevada-Las Vegas for Department-wide 
management of electronic records.
    The Committee raises a concern that the Department's 
current program of medical screening and education at the 
gaseous diffusion plants will not be sufficient to complete all 
necessary screening and evaluation under the current contract 
period. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to 
ensure that all necessary screening and evaluation of workers, 
both current and former, is adequate and that those workers 
with an elevated risk of lung cancer will receive a lung scan. 
The Committee recommendation also provides $1,750,000 for the 
University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky to 
undertake epidemiological studies of workers to identify 
exposure pathways, and $880,000 to provide medical screening 
for workers employed at the Amchitka Nuclear Weapons Test Site.
    For nearly 50 years, the State of Nevada has been the 
principal location for the testing of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile. The Committee is aware that the State of Nevada has 
identified deficiencies in its Cancer Registry, Vital 
Statistics, and Birth Defects Registry activities. The 
Committee recommendation makes available up to $1,000,000 from 
within available funds to allow for the enhancement of these 
long-term health surveillance activities.
    Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.--The 
Administration proposed to establish an occupational illness 
compensation program for current and former workers at the 
Department's nuclear facilities. The Committee recommendation 
includes $17,000,000 for this initiative, the same as the 
budget request, within Environment, Safety and Health, and 
makes the appropriation contingent upon enactment of 
authorizing legislation.

                    Worker and Community Transition

    The Committee has provided an appropriation of $24,500,000 
for these activities for fiscal year 2001. This is the same as 
the budget request and the level recommended by the Senate 
authorizing committee.
    The Worker and Community Transition budget provides funding 
for activities associated with enhanced benefits beyond those 
required by contract, existing company policy or collective 
bargaining agreements at defense nuclear facilities. The goals 
of the program are to mitigate the impacts on workers and 
communities from contractor work force restructuring, and to 
assist community planning for all site conversions, while 
managing the transition to the reduced work force that will 
better meet ongoing mission requirements through the 
application of best business practices.
    Under the USEC Privatization Act, the Department has a 
responsibility to mitigate the impact of layoffs at the 
Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, gaseous diffusion 
plants. On February 3, 2000, USEC announced its intention to 
reduce its workforce at the two plants by 850 positions with 
workers separating in July 2000. In light of the adverse 
economic conditions in these communities, the Office of Worker 
and Community Transition developed worker separation benefits, 
in consultation with stakeholders, to encourage voluntary 
separations and mitigate the impact on separating workers. 
These effort required the utilization of all available funds, 
including prior year uncosted funds. The Committee recognizes 
that the need to divert funding to gaseous diffusion plant 
workers at Portsmouth and Paducah during the current fiscal 
year made it impossible for the Office of Worker and Community 
Transition to provide a full portfolio of community grants. 
Under the circumstances, the Committee supports the 
Department's decision to divert these funds, but expects 
communities that were denied funding this year be granted 
priority status in fiscal year 2001. These communities include 
the Nevada Test Site; Miamisburg, Ohio; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; 
Pinellas, Florida; Hanford, Washington, northern and central 
New Mexico and the Savanah River Site in South Carolina.
    The Committee strongly objects to the Department's decision 
to remove the requirement that management and operating 
contracts at DOE sites include provisions for economic 
development activities in the communities surrounding such 
sites. The Committee directs the Department to include, to the 
greatest extent practicable, a requirement that such 
contractors make a significant financial contribution to local 
area economic development, job creation activities, and other 
community activities. The Department should develop such 
requirements in consultation with the local elected officials 
representing the impacted communities.

                     Office of Hearings and Appeals

    An appropriation of $3,000,000 is recommended for the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals. The Office of Hearings and 
Appeals conduct all of the Department's adjudicative process 
and provides various administrative remedies as may be 
required. The goal is to promote successful and uninterrupted 
DOE operations through the deliberate, expeditious and 
equitable resolution of all claims of adverse impact emanating 
from the operations of the Department.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $111,574,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     112,000,000
House allowance.........................................     200,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     292,000,000

    The Committee recommends $292,000,000 for defense nuclear 
waste disposal, an increase of $180,000,000 over the current 
year appropriation.
    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 1998, the balance owed by the 
Federal Government to the nuclear waste fund was approaching 
$1,500,000,000 (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 1999, a total of $1,176,830,000 has been 
appropriated to support nuclear waste repository activities 
attributable to atomic energy defense activities.

                        RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

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

                    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 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.
    The fiscal year 2001 budget request provides authority for 
the use of offsetting collections from the sale of electricity 
to finance purchase of power and wheeling expenses previously 
funded by direct appropriations.
    The Committee is aware that in response to FERC Order No. 
2000 concerning Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), 
efforts are underway throughout the PMAs' marketing territories 
to explore and pursue formation of RTOs. The PMAs are actively 
participating in those efforts. We understand that if a PMA 
ultimately participates in an RTO, the impacts on certain PMA 
employees could be significant. The Committee encourages the 
PMA Administrators to use whatever administrative authorities 
are at their disposal with regard to accrued leave, seniority, 
health and retirement benefits, and other related matters to 
ensure that PMA employees have an equitable opportunity to 
compete for jobs in the RTOs. If it becomes apparent that 
existing administrative tools are inadequate to address these 
matters, legislative action may be necessary.

                  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 over 
15,000 circuit-miles of transmission line and 324 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 2001, the 
Committee recommends an additional increment of $331,200,000 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 1999, Bonneville will pay 
the Treasury $595,000,000, 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 2001.
    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.
    Language in included in the bill which specifically 
approves the expenditure of funds to initiate work on the Nez 
Perce Tribe resident fish substitution program, and the Couer 
D'Alene Tribe trout production facility.
    The Committee is aware of and supports BPA's efforts to 
replace outdated microwave communications systems with fiber 
optics. Given the potential benefits, BPA is urged to continue 
efforts related to open-access policy.
    The Committee is aware that in response to FERC's Order 
2000 respecting Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO), 
efforts are underway in the Pacific Northwest to explore and 
pursue formation of an RTO. The Bonneville Power Administration 
is actively participating in those efforts. The Committee 
understands that if BPA ultimately participates in an RTO, the 
impacts on BPA Transmission Business Line employees could be 
significant. The Committee encourages the BPA Administrator to 
use available administrative authorities with regard to accrued 
leave, seniority, health and retirement benefits, and other 
related matters to ensure that BPA Transmission Business Line 
employees have an equitable opportunity to compete for jobs in 
the RTO. If it becomes apparent that existing administrative 
tools are inadequate to address these matters, legislative 
action may be necessary.

      operation and maintenance, southeastern power administration

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $39,579,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       3,900,000
House allowance.........................................       3,900,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,900,000

    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 transmission 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.
    The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power 
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request.

      operation and maintenance, southwestern power administration

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $27,891,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      28,100,000
House allowance.........................................      28,100,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,100,000

    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.
    The Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power 
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget 
request.

 construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance western area 
                          power administration

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $192,602,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     164,916,000
House allowance.........................................     160,930,000
Committee recommendation................................     164,916,000

    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 Committee concurs with the financing of purchased power 
and wheeling costs as proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget 
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 $2,670,000, 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, 2000....................................    $174,950,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     175,200,000
House allowance.........................................     175,200,000
Committee recommendation................................     175,200.000

                salaries and expenses--revenues applied

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $174,950,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     175,200,000
House allowance.........................................     175,200,000
Committee recommendation................................     175,200,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $175,200,000 for the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Revenues are 
established at a rate equal to the amount provided for program 
activities, resulting in a net appropriation of zero.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates key 
interstate aspects of the electric power, natural gas, oil 
pipeline, and hydroelectric industries. FERC chooses regulatory 
approaches that foster competitive markets whenever possible, 
assures access to reliable service at a reasonable price, and 
gives full and fair consideration to environmental and 
community impacts in assessing the public interest of energy 
projects. Due to major changes in the energy sector over the 
past decade, FERC will be shifting away for its traditional 
regulation of energy industries to combining its regulation of 
energy markets into one program.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee's detailed funding recommendation for 
programs in Title III, Department of Energy, are contained in 
the following table.

                                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Current year       Budget           House         Committee
                  Project title                       enacted        estimate        allowance    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  ENERGY SUPPLY

           RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Renewable energy technologies:
    Biomass/biofuels energy systems:
        Power systems...........................         32,500          47,830          33,462          47,600
        Transportation..........................         39,500          54,110          46,160          43,750
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Biomass/biofuels energy              72,000         101,940          79,622          91,350
           systems..............................

Biomass/biofuels energy research................         26,740          26,740          26,740          26,740
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Biomass.........................         98,740         128,680         106,362         118,090

Geothermal technology development...............         24,000          26,970          26,925          28,000
Hydrogen research...............................         25,000          22,940          23,000          30,950
Hydrogen energy research........................          2,970           2,970           2,970           2,970
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Hydrogen........................         27,970          25,910          25,970          33,920

Hydropower......................................          5,000           5,000           3,488           5,500
Solar energy:
    Concentrating solar power...................         15,410          14,940          13,800          14,000
    Photovoltaic energy systems.................         67,000          81,450          75,775          76,500
    Photovoltaic energy research................          2,847           2,847           2,847           2,847
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Photovoltaic....................         69,847          84,297          78,622          79,347

    Solar building technology research..........          2,000           4,470           3,950           4,500
    Solar photoconversion energy research.......         14,260          14,260          14,260          14,260
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Solar energy....................        101,517         117,967         110,632         112,107

Wind energy systems.............................         33,000          50,140          36,900          43,617
Wind energy research............................            283             283             283             283
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Wind............................         33,283          50,423          37,183          43,900
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Renewable energy technologies......        290,510         354,950         310,560         341,517
                                                 ===============================================================
Electric energy systems and storage:
    High temperature superconducting R&D........         31,910          31,900          31,900          41,000
    Energy storage systems......................          3,500           5,000           4,000           6,000
    Transmission reliability....................          3,000          10,960           5,975          12,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Electric energy systems and storage         38,410          47,860          41,875          59,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Renewable support and implementation:
    Departmental energy management..............  ..............          4,988           2,000           2,000
    International renewable energy program......          4,000          11,460           4,000           6,000
    Renewable energy production incentive                 1,500           4,000           3,925           4,000
     program....................................
    Renewable Indian energy resources...........          4,000           5,000           2,000           6,600
    Renewable program support...................          5,000           6,500           4,000           3,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Renewable support and                       14,500          31,948          15,925          21,600
       implementation...........................
                                                 ===============================================================
National renewable energy laboratory............          1,100           1,900           4,000           4,000
Program direction...............................         17,720          18,159          18,159          18,000
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES.........        362,240         454,817         390,519         444,117
                                                 ===============================================================
                 NUCLEAR ENERGY

Advanced radioisotope power system..............         34,500          30,864          29,200          34,200
                                                 ===============================================================
Isotopes: Isotope support and production........         13,000          16,218          22,715          16,715
    Construction: 99-E-201 Isotope production             7,500             500             500           4,500
     facility (LANL)............................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Isotope support and production..         20,500          16,718          23,215          21,215

Offsetting collections..........................  ..............  ..............         -8,000   ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Isotopes...........................         20,500          16,718          15,215          21,215
                                                 ===============================================================
University reactor fuel assistance and support..         12,000          12,000          12,000          12,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Research and development:
    Civilian research and development...........          9,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
    Nuclear energy plant optimization...........          5,000           5,000           5,000           5,000
    Nuclear energy research initiative..........         22,500          34,903          22,500          41,500
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and development...........         36,500          39,903          27,500          46,500
                                                 ===============================================================
Infrastructure:
    ANL-West operations.........................  ..............  ..............         39,150   ..............
    Fast flux test facility (FFTF)..............         28,000          38,524          39,000          44,010
    Test reactor area landlord..................          6,070           7,415           7,575           7,575
        Construction:
            99-E-200 Test reactor area                    1,430             879             925             925
             electrical utility upgrade, Idaho
             National Engineering Laboratory, ID
            95-E-201 Test reactor area fire and           1,500             458             500             500
             life safety improvements, Idaho
             National Engineering Laboratory, ID
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction............          2,930           1,337           1,425           1,425
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Test reactor area                 9,000           8,752           9,000           9,000
               landlord.........................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Infrastructure.............         37,000          47,276          87,150          53,010
                                                 ===============================================================
Nuclear facilities management...................         80,000          66,126   ..............         74,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Termination activities:
    EBR-II shutdown.............................  ..............  ..............          8,800   ..............
    Disposition of spent fuel and legacy          ..............  ..............         16,200   ..............
     materials..................................
    Disposition technology activities...........  ..............  ..............          9,850   ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Termination activities.............  ..............  ..............         34,850   ..............
                                                 ===============================================================
Uranium programs................................         43,500          47,779   ..............  ..............
Program direction...............................         24,700          27,620          25,900          24,700
General reduction...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............         -3,541
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY.....................        288,700         288,286         231,815         262,084
                                                 ===============================================================
         ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Environment, safety and health..................         20,000          19,906          15,002          20,000
Program direction...............................         18,998          19,998          19,998          18,998
General reduction...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............           -677
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH.....         38,998          39,904          35,000          38,321
                                                 ===============================================================
            ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Technical information management program........          1,600           1,802           1,250           1,600
Program direction...............................          7,000           7,335           7,350           7,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Technical information management             8,600           9,137           8,600           8,600
       program..................................
                                                 ===============================================================
Transfer to OSHA................................          1,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
General reduction...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............           -150
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..........          9,600           9,137           8,600           8,450
                                                 ===============================================================
      Subtotal, Energy supply...................        699,538         792,144         665,934         752,972
                                                 ===============================================================
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law           -1,155   ..............  ..............  ..............
 106-113).......................................
Renewable energy research program...............        -47,100         -47,100         -47,100         -47,100
General reduction...............................         -6,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
Transfer from Geothermal and USEC...............         -5,821         -12,000   ..............        -12,000
Contractor travel savings.......................         -1,500   ..............  ..............  ..............
Offset from revenue sharing.....................  ..............         -2,352          -2,352          -2,352
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY......................        637,962         730,692         616,482         691,520
                                                 ===============================================================
      NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Site closure....................................        216,946          81,248          81,636          81,636
                                                 ===============================================================
Site/project completion.........................         95,250          63,798          59,721          54,721
Construction: 93-E-900 Long-term storage of TMI-          2,500   ..............  ..............  ..............
 2 fuel, INEL...................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Site/project completion............         97,750          63,798          59,721          54,721
                                                 ===============================================================
Post 2006 completion............................         18,922         137,766         139,644         178,244
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law           -1,268   ..............  ..............  ..............
 106-113).......................................
General reduction...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............         -5,460
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL                  332,350         282,812         281,001         309,141
       MANAGEMENT...............................
                                                 ===============================================================
     URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND
              DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Decontamination and decommissioning.............        220,198         264,588   ..............        273,038
Uranium/thorium reimbursement...................         30,000          30,000   ..............         30,000
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law             -951   ..............  ..............  ..............
 106-113).......................................
General reduction...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............         -5,260
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION         249,247         294,588   ..............        297,778
       AND DECOMMISSIONING......................
                                                 ===============================================================
 URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
 Decommissioning Fund:
    Decontamination and decommissioning.........  ..............  ..............        230,000   ..............
    Uranium/thorium reimbursement...............  ..............  ..............         30,000   ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Uranium enrichment D&D fund........  ..............  ..............        260,000   ..............
                                                 ===============================================================
Other Uranium Activities:
    Maintenance of facilities and inventories...  ..............  ..............         29,193   ..............
    Pre-existing liabilities....................  ..............  ..............         11,330   ..............
    Depleted UF6 conversion project.............  ..............  ..............         12,877   ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Other uranium activities...........  ..............  ..............         53,400   ..............
                                                 ===============================================================
      Subtotal, Uranium facilities maint AND      ..............  ..............        313,400   ..............
       remediation..............................
                                                 ===============================================================
Transfer from USEC..............................  ..............  ..............        -12,000   ..............
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND   ..............  ..............        301,400   ..............
       REMEDIATION..............................
                                                 ===============================================================
                     SCIENCE

High energy physics:
    Research and technology.....................        229,190         236,000         224,820         216,020
    Facility operations.........................        450,000         440,872         457,510         428,610
    Construction:
        00-G-307 SLAC office building...........          2,000           5,200           5,200           5,200
        99-G-306 Wilson hall safety                       4,700           4,200           4,200           4,200
         improvements, Fermilab.................
        98-G-304 Neutrinos at the main injector,         22,000          23,000          23,000          23,000
         Fermilab...............................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................         28,700          32,400          32,400          32,400
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Facility operations.........        478,700         473,272         489,910         461,010
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, High energy physics............        707,890         709,272         714,730         677,030
                                                 ===============================================================
Nuclear physics.................................        352,000         365,069         369,890         350,274
                                                 ===============================================================
Biological and environmental research...........        441,500         435,954         404,000         441,500
    01-E-300 Laboratory for Comparative and       ..............          2,500   ..............          2,500
     Functional Genomics, ORNL..................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Biological and environmental               441,500         438,454         404,000         444,000
       research.................................
                                                 ===============================================================
Basic energy sciences:
    Materials sciences..........................        405,000         448,964         413,000         408,363
    Chemical sciences...........................        209,582         219,090         209,000         216,229
    Engineering and geosciences.................         37,545          40,304          38,000          39,816
    Energy biosciences..........................         31,000          33,662          31,000          28,274
    Construction: 99-E-334 Spallation neutron           100,000         261,900         100,000         221,900
     source (ORNL)..............................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Basic energy sciences..............        783,127       1,003,920         791,000         914,582
                                                 ===============================================================
Other energy research:
    Advanced scientific computing research......        132,000         179,817         137,000         139,970
    Energy research analyses....................          1,000             988           1,000           1,000
    Multiprogram energy labs--facility support:
        Infrastructure support..................          2,160           1,023           1,160           1,160
        Oak Ridge landlord......................         11,800           7,475          10,711          10,711
        Construction: MEL-001 Multiprogram               18,351          22,059          22,059          22,059
         energy laboratory infrastructure
         projects, various locations............
        Multiprogram general purpose facilities:
            Construction: 94-E-363 Roofing                  749   ..............  ..............  ..............
             improvements (ORNL)................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Multiprogram energy labs         33,060          30,557          33,930          33,930
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Other energy research......        166,060         211,362         171,930         174,900
                                                 ===============================================================
Fusion energy sciences program..................        250,000         243,907         255,000         227,270
Safeguards and security.........................  ..............         49,818   ..............  ..............
                                                 ===============================================================
Program direction:
    Field offices...............................         78,748          82,929          82,062          78,307
    Headquarters................................         52,360          51,408          51,438          51,438
    Science education...........................  ..............          6,500           4,500           3,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program direction..................        131,108         140,837         138,000         132,745
                                                 ===============================================================
      Subtotal, Science.........................      2,831,685       3,162,639       2,844,550       2,920,801
                                                 ===============================================================
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law          -12,224   ..............  ..............  ..............
 106-113).......................................
Contractor travel savings.......................        -10,834   ..............  ..............  ..............
General reduction...............................        -21,000   ..............        -13,635         -50,689
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, SCIENCE............................      2,787,627       3,162,639       2,830,915       2,870,112
                                                 ===============================================================
           DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Office of the Secretary.................          4,940           6,648           5,000           6,648
        Board of contract appeals...............            838             878             878             878
        Chief financial officer.................         26,000          30,748          28,000          30,748
        Contract reform.........................          3,000           2,500           2,500           2,500
        Congressional and intergovernmental               4,910           5,146           5,000           5,146
         affairs................................
        Economic impact and diversity...........          4,700           5,126           5,100           5,126
        Field management........................          1,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
        General counsel.........................         20,750          22,724          21,800          22,724
        International affairs...................  ..............          9,400           7,000           9,400
        Management and administration...........         98,000          78,882          77,800          78,882
        Policy office...........................         14,000           6,688           6,600           6,688
        Public affairs..........................          3,700           4,150           3,900           4,150
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Salaries and expenses.......        181,838         172,890         163,578         172,890

Program support:
    Minority economic impact....................          1,700           1,498           1,500           1,500
    Policy analysis and system studies..........            350             406             422             422
    Environmental policy studies................          1,000           1,600           1,000           1,000
    Scientific and technical training...........            450   ..............  ..............  ..............
    Corporate management information program....         12,000          12,000          12,000          12,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Program support.................         15,500          15,504          14,922          14,922
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative operations..........        197,338         188,394         178,500         187,812
                                                 ===============================================================
Cost of work for others.........................         34,027          34,027          34,027          34,027
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Departmental Administration.....        231,365         222,421         212,527         221,839

Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law             -784   ..............  ..............  ..............
 106-113).......................................
Use of prior year balances and other adjustments        -15,000          -8,000          -8,000          -8,000
Transfer from other defense activities..........        -10,000   ..............        -51,000   ..............
General reduction...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............         -3,711
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental administration (gross)        205,581         214,421         153,527         210,128

Miscellaneous revenues..........................       -106,887        -128,762        -111,000        -128,762
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net)..         98,694          85,659          42,527          81,366
                                                 ===============================================================
           OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Office of Inspector General.....................         29,500          33,000          31,500          28,988
                                                 ===============================================================
        ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

    NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

               WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Stewardship operation and maintenance:
    Core stockpile stewardship..................      1,610,355   ..............  ..............  ..............
    Stockpile management........................      1,804,621   ..............  ..............  ..............
Directed stockpile work:
    Stockpile research and development..........  ..............        243,300         243,300         268,300
    Stockpile maintenance.......................  ..............        257,994         266,994         282,994
    Stockpile evaluation........................  ..............        151,710         162,710         171,710
    Dismantlement/disposal......................  ..............         29,260          29,260          29,260
    Production support..........................  ..............        149,939         149,939         149,939
    Field engineering, training and manuals.....  ..............          4,400           4,400           4,400
    Safeguards and Security Amend. reduction....  ..............        -17,427   ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Directed stockpile work.........  ..............        819,176         856,603         906,603

Campaigns:
    Primary certification.......................  ..............         41,400          41,400          51,400
    Dynamic materials properties................  ..............         64,408          64,408          64,408
    Advanced radiography........................  ..............         43,000          43,000          58,000
        Construction: 97-D-102 Dual-axis                 61,000          35,232          35,232          35,232
         radiographic hydrotest facility (LANL),
         Los Alamos, NM.........................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Advanced radiography........         61,000          78,232          78,232          93,232

    Secondary certification and nuclear systems   ..............         52,964          52,964          52,964
     margins....................................
    Enhanced surety.............................  ..............         40,600          40,600          40,600
    Weapons system engineering certification....  ..............         16,300          16,300          16,300
    Certification in hostile environments.......  ..............         15,400          15,400          15,400
    Enhanced surveillance.......................  ..............         89,651          89,651         106,651
    Advanced design and production technologies.  ..............         75,735          75,735          75,735
    Inertial confinement fusion.................  ..............        120,800         290,500         120,800
        Construction:
            96-D-111 National ignition facility,        248,100          73,469          74,100          74,100
             LLNL...............................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Inertial confinement            248,100         194,269         364,600         194,900
               fusion...........................

    Defense computing and modeling..............  ..............        249,100         706,175         249,100
        Construction:
            01-D-101 Distributed information      ..............          2,300           2,300           2,300
             systems laboratory, SNL, Livermore,
             CA.................................
            00-D-103, Terascale simulation                8,000           4,900           5,000           5,000
             facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA......
            00-D-105 Strategic computing                 26,000          56,000          56,000          56,000
             complex, LANL, Los Alamos, NM......
            00-D-107 Joint computational                  1,800           6,700           6,700           6,700
             engineering laboratory, SNL,
             Albuquerque, NM....................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction............         35,800          69,900          70,000          70,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Defense computing and            35,800         319,000         776,175         319,100
               modeling.........................

    Pit manufacturing readiness.................  ..............        108,038         110,038         123,038
    Secondary readiness.........................  ..............         15,000          15,000          25,000
    Materials readiness.........................  ..............         40,511          40,511          40,511
    Tritium readiness...........................  ..............         77,000          77,000          58,000
        Construction:
            98-D-125 Tritium extraction                  33,000          75,000          75,000          75,000
             facility, SR.......................
            98-D-126 Accelerator production of           36,000   ..............         25,000   ..............
             Tritium, various locations.........
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Construction............         69,000          75,000         100,000          75,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, Tritium readiness.......         69,000         152,000         177,000         133,000

    Safeguards and Security Amend. reduction....  ..............        -52,204   ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Campaigns.......................        413,900       1,251,304       1,958,014       1,352,239

    Readiness in technical base and facilities:
    Operations of facilities....................  ..............      1,313,432       1,198,732       1,449,721
    Program readiness...........................  ..............         75,800          75,800          75,800
    Special projects............................  ..............         48,297          31,297          53,297
    Material recycle and recovery...............  ..............         22,018          22,018          37,018
    Containers..................................  ..............          7,876           7,876           7,876
    Storage.....................................  ..............          9,075           9,075           9,075
    Advanced simulation and computing...........  ..............        477,075   ..............        477,075
    Safeguards and Security Amend. reduction....  ..............       -220,867   ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and   ..............      1,732,706       1,344,798       2,109,862
       fac......................................

    Construction:
        01-D-103 Preliminary project engineering  ..............         14,500          14,500          29,500
         and design, various locations..........
        01-D-124 HEU storage facility, Y-12       ..............         17,749          17,800          17,800
         plant, Oak Ridge, TN...................
        01-D-126 Weapons Evaluation Test          ..............          3,000           3,000           3,000
         Laboratory Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX..
        99-D-102 Rehabilitation of maintenance            3,900   ..............  ..............  ..............
         facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA..........
        99-D-103 Isotope sciences facilities,             2,000           4,975           5,000           5,000
         LLNL, Livermore, CA....................
        99-D-104 Protection of real property              2,400           2,786           2,800           2,800
         (roof reconstruction-Phase II), LLNL,
         Livermore, CA..........................
        99-D-105 Central health physics                   1,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
         cailbration facility, LANL, Los Alamos,
         NM.....................................
        99-D-106 Model validation AND system              6,500           5,200           5,200           5,200
         certification center, SNL, Albuquerque,
         NM.....................................
        99-D-108 Renovate existing roadways,              5,000           1,874           2,000           2,000
         Nevada Test Site, NV...................
        99-D-122 Rapid reactivation, various             11,700   ..............  ..............  ..............
         locations..............................
        99-D-125 Replace boilers and controls,    ..............         13,000          13,000          13,000
         Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO.....
        99-D-127 Stockpile management                    17,000          23,566          23,765          23,765
         restructuring initiative, Kansas City
         plant, Kansas City, MO.................
        99-D-128 Stockpile management                     3,429           4,998           4,998           4,998
         restructuring initiative, Pantex
         consolidation, Amarillo, TX............
        98-D-123 Stockpile management                    21,800          30,767          30,767          30,767
         restructuring initiative, Tritium
         factory modernization and
         consolidation, Savannah River, SC......
        98-D-124 Stockpile management                     3,150   ..............  ..............  ..............
         restructuring initiative, Y-12
         consolidation, Oak Ridge, TN...........
        97-D-123 Structural upgrades, Kansas              4,800           2,864           2,918           2,918
         City plant, Kansas City, KS............
        96-D-102 Stockpile stewardship                    2,640   ..............  ..............  ..............
         facilities revitalization (Phase VI),
         various locations......................
        96-D-104 Processing and environmental            10,900   ..............  ..............  ..............
         technology laboratory (SNL)............
        95-D-102 Chemistry and metallurgy                15,000          13,337          13,337          13,337
         research (CMR) upgrades project (LANL).
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................        111,219         138,616         139,085         154,085
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Readiness in technical base         111,219       1,871,322       1,483,883       2,263,947
           and fac..............................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Stewardship operation and            3,940,095       3,941,802       4,298,500       4,522,789
           maintenance..........................
                                                 ===============================================================
Inertial fusion.................................        227,600   ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ===============================================================
Technology transfer/education:
    Technology transfer.........................         14,500   ..............  ..............  ..............
    Education...................................         18,600   ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Technology transfer/education......         33,100   ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ===============================================================
Transportation safeguards division:
    Operations and equipment....................         60,000          79,357          79,357          79,357
    Program direction...........................         31,812          36,316          36,316          36,316
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Transportation safeguards division.         91,812         115,673         115,673         115,673
                                                 ===============================================================
Safeguards and security.........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Construction:
        99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material                   11,300   ..............         18,043          18,043
         safeguards and security upgrade project
         (LANL), Los Alamos, NM.................
        88-D-123 Security enhancements, Pantex            3,500   ..............          2,713           2,713
         plant, Amarillo, TX....................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................         14,800   ..............         20,756          20,756
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Safeguards and security........         14,800   ..............         20,756          20,756
                                                 ===============================================================
Safeguards and security (SO):
    Operations and maintenance..................  ..............        356,840   ..............  ..............
    Construction:
        99-D-132 SMRI nuclear material            ..............         18,043   ..............  ..............
         safeguards and security upgrade
         project, LANL, Los Alamos, MN..........
        88-D-123 Security enhancements, Pantex    ..............          2,713   ..............  ..............
         plant, 1Amarillo, TX...................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Construction...................  ..............         20,756   ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Program direction...............................        209,000         204,154         216,871         224,071
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Weapons activities..............      4,516,407       4,639,225       4,651,800       4,883,289
                                                 ===============================================================
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law          -16,887   ..............  ..............  ..............
 106-113).......................................
Use of prior year balances......................         -7,668   ..............  ..............  ..............
Contractor travel savings.......................        -30,000   ..............        -46,000   ..............
Directed savings................................         -5,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
General reduction...............................        -29,800   ..............        -26,116   ..............
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.................      4,427,052       4,639,225       4,579,684       4,883,289
                                                 ===============================================================
        DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D..........        215,000         216,550         215,000         245,990
    Construction: 500-D-192 Nonproliferation and          6,000           7,000           7,000          17,000
     international security center (NISC), LANL.
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nonproliferation and                    221,000         223,550         222,000         262,990
       verification, R&D........................
                                                 ===============================================================
Arms control....................................        281,000         119,915         141,514         138,014
International materials protection, control, and  ..............        146,081         169,856         173,856
 accounting.....................................
Long-term nonproliferation program for Russia...  ..............        100,000   ..............  ..............
HEU transparency implementation.................         15,750          15,166          15,190          15,190
International nuclear safety....................         15,000          18,902          20,000          20,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Fissile materials disposition...................        134,766   ..............  ..............  ..............
    U.S. surplus materials disposition..........  ..............        117,912         139,517         135,517
    Russian surplus materials disposition.......  ..............         34,803          40,000          40,000
    Program direction--MD.......................          7,343           9,878   ..............          9,918
    Construction:
        01-D-407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU)    ..............  ..............         20,932          27,932
         blend down, Savannah River, SC.........
        01-D-142 Immobilization and associated    ..............          3,000           3,000           3,000
         processing facility, various locations.
        99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion          18,751          20,000          20,000          20,000
         facility, various locations............
        99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication            12,375          15,000          18,000          21,000
         facility various locations.............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................         31,126          38,000          61,932          71,932
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Fissile materials                   173,235         200,593         241,449         257,367
           disposition..........................
                                                 ===============================================================
Program direction...............................         89,000          41,383          51,468          41,550
Use of prior year balances......................        -49,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
Directed savings................................         -5,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
Contractor travel savings.......................        -11,885   ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION...        729,100         865,590         861,477         908,967
                                                 ===============================================================
                 NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development......................        633,000         623,063         627,500         644,500
    Construction:
        GPN-101 General plant projects, various           9,000          11,400          11,400          11,400
         locations..............................
        01-D-200 Major office replacement         ..............          1,300           1,300           1,300
         building, Schenectady, NY..............
        98-D-200 Site laboratory/facility                 3,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
         upgrade, various locations.............
        90-N-102 Expended core facility dry cell         12,000          16,000          16,000          16,000
         project, Naval Reactors Facility, ID...
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................         24,000          28,700          28,700          28,700
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Naval reactors development..        657,000         651,763         656,200         673,200
                                                 ===============================================================
Program direction...............................         20,600          21,320          21,400          21,400
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS.....................        677,600         673,083         677,600         694,600
                                                 ===============================================================
Office of the Administrator.....................  ..............  ..............  ..............         10,000

      TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY                5,833,752       6,177,898       6,118,761       6,496,856
       ADMINISTRATION...........................
                                                 ===============================================================
   DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE
                      MGMT.

Site/project completion:
    Operation and maintenance...................        902,002         856,812         900,167         897,975
    Construction:
        01-D-402 Intec cathodic protection        ..............            481             500             500
         system expansion project, Idaho
         National Engineering and Environmental
         Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID............
        01-D-407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU)    ..............         27,932   ..............  ..............
         blend down, Savannah River, SC.........
        99-D-402 Tank farm support services, F&H          3,100           7,714           7,714           7,714
         area, Savannah River site, Aiken, SC...
        99-D-404 Health physics instrumentation           5,000           4,277           4,300           4,300
         laboratory (INEL), ID..................
        98-D-401 H-tank farm storm water systems          2,977   ..............  ..............  ..............
         upgrade, Savannah River, SC............
        98-D-453 Plutonium stabilization and             16,860           1,690           1,690           1,690
         handling system for PFP, Richland, WA..
        98-D-700 Road rehabilitation (INEL), ID.          2,590   ..............  ..............  ..............
        97-D-450 Savannah River nuclear material          4,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
         storage, Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC
        97-D-470 Regulatory monitoring and               12,220           3,949           3,949           3,949
         bioassay laboratory, Savannah River
         site, Aiken, SC........................
        96-D-406 Spent nuclear fuels canister            20,941   ..............  ..............  ..............
         storage and stabilization facility,
         Richland, WA...........................
        96-D-464 Electrical AND utility systems          11,971   ..............  ..............  ..............
         upgrade, Idaho chemical processing
         plant (INEL), ID.......................
        96-D-471 CFC HVAC/chiller retrofit,                 931          12,512          12,512          12,512
         Savannah River site, Aiken, SC.........
        92-D-140 F&H canyon exhaust upgrades,     ..............          8,879           8,879           8,879
         Savannah River, SC.....................
        86-D-103 Decontamination and waste                2,000           2,000           2,000           2,000
         treatment facility (LLNL), Livermore,
         CA.....................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................         82,590          69,434          41,544          41,544
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Site/project completion........        984,592         926,246         941,711         939,519
                                                 ===============================================================
Post 2006 completion:
    Operation and maintenance...................      2,511,997       2,453,735       2,548,033       2,647,993
    Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution....        420,000         420,000         420,000         420,000
    Construction:
        01-D-403 Immobilized high level waste     ..............          1,300           1,300           1,300
         interim storage facility, Richland, WA.
        00-D-401 Spent Nuclear Fuel treatment             7,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
         and storage facility Title I AND II,
         Savannah River, SC.....................
        99-D-403 Privatization Phase I                   13,988           7,812           7,812           7,812
         infrastructure support, Richland, WA...
        97-D-402 Tank farm restoration and safe          20,516          46,023          46,023          46,023
         operations, Richland, WA...............
        94-D-407 Initial tank retrieval systems,          4,060          17,385          17,385          17,385
         Richland, WA...........................
        93-D-187 High-level waste removal from            8,987          27,212          27,212          27,212
         filled waste tanks, Savannah River, SC.
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Construction................         54,551          99,732          99,732          99,732
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Post 2006 completion...........      2,986,548       2,973,467       3,067,765       3,167,725
                                                 ===============================================================
Science and technology..........................        230,500         195,032         242,548         252,948
Safeguards and security.........................  ..............        203,748   ..............  ..............
Program direction...............................        339,409         347,881         355,000         359,888
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Defense environmental management      4,541,049       4,646,374       4,607,024       4,720,080
                                                 ===============================================================
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law          -17,041   ..............  ..............  ..............
 106-113).......................................
Use of prior year balances/general reduction....        -40,000         -34,317         -34,317         -34,317
Contractor travel savings.......................         -6,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
Pension refund..................................         -8,700         -50,000         -50,000         -50,000
Directed savings................................         -2,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRON. RESTORATION AND         4,467,308       4,562,057       4,522,707       4,635,763
       WASTE MGMT...............................
                                                 ===============================================================
       DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Site closure....................................      1,064,492       1,027,942       1,082,297       1,082,297
Safeguards and security.........................  ..............         54,772   ..............  ..............
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law           -4,045   ..............  ..............  ..............
 106-113).......................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS      1,060,447       1,082,714       1,082,297       1,082,297
                                                 ===============================================================
 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Privatization initiatives, various locations....        233,000         539,976         284,092         349,092
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law             -718   ..............  ..............  ..............
 106-113).......................................
Use of prior year balances......................        -44,000         -25,092         -25,092         -25,092
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.                188,282         514,884         259,000         324,000
       PRIVATIZATION............................
                                                 ===============================================================
      TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT...      5,716,037       6,159,655       5,864,004       6,042,060
                                                 ===============================================================
            OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs:
    Intelligence................................         36,059          35,010          36,059          36,059
    Construction: 01-D-800 Sensitive              ..............          1,975           2,000           2,000
     compartmented information facility, LLNL,
     Livermore, CA..............................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Intelligence....................         36,059          36,985          38,059          38,059

    Security and emergency operations:
        Nuclear safeguards......................         69,100         123,566         116,409         120,409
        Security investigations.................         33,000          38,597          33,000          33,000
        Emergency management....................         21,000          91,773          90,000          37,311
        Program direction.......................  ..............         89,367          92,967          89,367
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Security and emergency              123,100         343,303         332,376         280,087
           operations...........................

    Counterintelligence.........................         39,200          44,328          45,200          45,200
    Advanced accelerator applications...........  ..............  ..............  ..............         60,000
    Independent oversight and performance                 3,000   ..............  ..............  ..............
     assurance..................................
        Program direction.......................          2,000          14,937          14,937          14,937
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Independent oversight.......          5,000          14,937          14,937          14,937

    Environment, safety and health (Defense)....         73,231          85,963          80,559         111,076
        Program direction--EH...................         24,769          22,604          22,604          22,604
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Environment, safety AND              98,000         108,567         103,163         133,680
           health (Defense).....................

    Worker and community transition.............         21,000          21,497          21,500          21,500
        Program direction--WT...................          3,500           3,000           3,000           3,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Worker and community                 24,500          24,497          24,500          24,500
           transition...........................

    National Security programs administrative            10,000   ..............         51,000   ..............
     support....................................
    Office of hearings and appeals..............          3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other national security programs        338,859         575,617         612,235         599,463

Contractor travel savings.......................         -1,115   ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Other national security programs...        337,744         575,617         612,235         599,463
                                                 ===============================================================
      Subtotal, Other defense activities........        337,744         575,617         612,235         599,463
                                                 ===============================================================
Across-the-board cut (.38 percent) (Public Law    -6,545
